The Ubiquity of Bias

George Rebane

I am a biased ideologue (q.v.).  My biases, along with their reasoned bases, have been spelled out in detail on these pages for well over a decade.  No other blog I’m aware of has so meticulously presented its host’s credo and glossary of vocabulary relevant to the topics covered.

Having again made that statement, I go on to the more universal contention that there are no unbiased presentations of facts or fiction by Man, especially when it comes to matters of human affairs.  We all have a specific world view, a specific way we receive and incorporate new evidence into that world view, a unique set of desiderata for almost all aspects of human striving, and, of course, our own way of communicating and convincing others of the correctness of our particular perspectives.

People who claim to be innocent or cleansed of bias, and therefore present views which they claim are in some sense ‘ex cathedra’, are charlatans, deluded, or both.  This assessment applies especially to those self-proclaimed middle-roaders who profess to clothe their preferences in various forms of authoritative infallibility.  Even in science and every other STEM field we find biased presentations and ongoing debates as to where resides truth, goodness, and light.  The most visible charlatans here are those who seek to buttress their biases with claims of non-existent ‘settled science’.

From this, I and others like me conclude that bias in human affairs is ubiquitous – it was ever thus.

Therefore, the best that disputants in a debate can do is present their case in the context of their respective utilities (definitions of ‘good’), and the reasoned bases which support their propositions.  Wise debaters know beforehand that even with the best intentions and transparent interchanges, all disputes cannot be successfully resolved.  In the art of negotiation, participants are advised to approach all such contentious proceedings with a firm handle on their own BATNAs (best alternative to negotiated agreement).

In our country’s gathering socio-political storm, ongoing debates, accusations, and indictments between the polarized sides are seen at all levels, from the national to the thousands of towns and villages across the land.  As detailed on these pages, the manner in which these contentions are conducted is highly asymmetrical – the Right always willing to spell out the America they want, with the Left keeping secret the details of their vision of a fundamentally transformed country.

From the Left’s published proposals and ensconced public policies, the Right cannot help but conclude that their desire is for a socialist (anti-capitalist) state under a much enlarged and intrusive government that controls almost every aspect of Americans’ lives, livelihoods, thoughts, and speech.  And the Left’s leadership continues to broadcast its vision of those on the Right as being racist, white supremacists who desire to return the country to Jim Crow days with an economy dominated by large oligopolies that pollute the environment and beggar their workers.  They present no evidence beyond repeated allegations to support their case.

[Addendum]  In discussions and debates with my leftwing counterparts in private communications and on this public forum, I often have my supportive citations of verifiable facts rejected on the basis of their having been presented by sources considered hopelessly biased, unreliable, and therefore rejected on their face.  Their opposition is seldom a substantive refutation of the message, it’s always based on the received credentials of the messenger.  The obvious reason for this gambit is that they have no substantive refutation of what has been cited, and therefore must needs be reduced to denigrating the source with claims that all of its output are widely known and acknowledged falsehoods – neither being the case.

A second gambit of the leftists is to require the rejected citation to be additionally buttressed by sources they consider unbiased and reliable.  It never occurs to them to simply go to their own sources and delineate the specific error(s) that were contained in the originally presented citation.  That may also be a too generous conclusion.  The reason they exercise either of these gambits is that they know the original citation to have presented the truth, and all that now remains for them is to deny, delay, and/or deflect the subsequent course of the exchange.  For the Left, countering citations with an equivalent depth of evidence seems to be terra incognita.

Comments

[scenes]

This seems like a good spot.

"If Private Platforms Use Government Guidelines to Police Content, is that State Censorship?
YouTube's decision to demonetize podcaster Bret Weinstein raises serious questions, both about the First Amendment and regulatory capture
...
YouTube’s decision with regard to Weinstein and Heying seems part of an overall butterfly effect, as numerous other figures either connected to the topic or to DarkHorse have been censured by various platforms. Weinstein guest Dr. Robert Malone, a former Salk Institute researcher often credited with helping develop mRNA vaccine technology, has been suspended from LinkedIn, and Weinstein guest Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has had his appearances removed by YouTube. Even Satoshi Ōmura, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for his work on ivermectin, reportedly had a video removed by YouTube this week.
....
"

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-case-of-intellectual-capture-on

Remember that every time you are arguing with Mr. Frisch or Emery or Ms. Cross, that you are arguing with a foot soldier for Clownworld. The street soldiers pull down statues and burn buildings (with scarcely any prevention or punishment from a co-opted law enforcement management), the locals are busy with their propaganda efforts.

The sides for and against civilization are obvious and I'm willing to own the occasional situation where 200 people make it inside the Capitol (after being let in and with one being murdered of course). At least 400-500 of the original 200 are still being held in solitary as Torquemada gets out the knives.

[Bill Tozer]

‘The End of the Supreme Court Term Revealed Hysterics Posing as Legal Analysts’

Money quotes:

-Fortunately, the justices, unlike these confused journalists, understand that you’re supposed to make judgments based on the facts, not the identities of the parties involved.

-Father Matthew P Schneider wrote in a tweet that the line “sounds so completely wrong that I have trouble believing it’s just ignorance. I can kind of understand 1 person being mistaken, but a reporter is supposed to verify information.”

--Joy Reid blasted Republican South Dakota governor Kristi Noem on Thursday for sending the National Guard to Texas to assist with what Reid called a “nonexistent crisis” at the southern border.
(Say what? A nonexistent crisis at the border? How lazy can you get? That lazy.)

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/the-end-of-the-supreme-court-term-revealed-hysterics-posing-as-legal-analysts/

[Bill Tozer]

The Media May Be Responsible for Countless COVID Deaths

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/the-media-may-be-responsible-for-countless-covid-deaths/

[George Rebane]

BillT 313pm - There is no "Media May Be" to this story. As pointed out here some time ago, the correct version is "Media Is". Their reporting killed people.