In the article in Time cited by Michael Britt, http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/ James Poniewozik writes: "You can have subjective beliefs—because we all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."
Of course (as I'm sure Poniewozik would acknowledge) it isn't quite that simple. Assuming the individual is genuinely striving to encompass "objective evidence" within his or her view of events, there's the little matter of selection and interpretation. Since everyone agrees that we can't be entirely objective (or even neutral), as we all harbour our own preconceptions, the question is how do we set about trying to "aspire to being objective (i.e., try to be sensitive to our biases)" (Jim Clark) Jim suggests that we should >follow well-developed principles for identifying, reducing, >minimizing, and perhaps eliminating bias (i.e., the >repertoire of scientific tools generically referred to >as research methods)." One principle that I regard as indispensable (though my impression is that relatively few people abide by it) is that we should *actively* seek out informed critical examinations of views or contentions we are inclined to endorse (often because it chimes with our own current viewpoint). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6737 or send a blank email to leave-6737-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
