On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Charlie Griefer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Judah McAuley wrote: > >> I didn't actually say that it agreed or disagreed with me. I said that >> the report is likely to come to the conclusions that the group wants >> it to have. >> >> If I say "I believe in X, lets make a study to look for X", chances >> are good that your study will conclude that X exists. Not 100% certain >> of course, but when you build the desired conclusion into the premise >> of a study, it isn't really an unbiased study. >> > > I don't disagree with this, and the concern that the research has been done > in an objective manner is a valid concern to voice. But I don't necessarily > believe that one can simply dismiss the findings without proving that the > research itself was not done objectively. > > If there's a claim made that there's bias in the media (liberal or > otherwise), and a study is set up to determine the validity of that claim, > by your reasoning that study is doomed to failure, because they are "looking > for it". But if the claim is made.. any claim really... let's say somebody > claims "X"... wouldn't a study be warranted to see if "X" is true? But by > your reasoning the study is flawed from the onset because they are looking > for "X".
Looking for bias in general, and looking for a specific kind of bias, are sorta different. > I wouldn't dismiss it simply because they were looking for it. Of course > they were looking for it. That was the premise for the study. I would, > however, say, "I'd like to see details about the study to be sure that it > was conducted in an unbiased manner in order to arrive at conclusion Y." > > You do leave yourself some wiggle-room by saying "Not 100% certain of > course", and I agree with that (perhaps not surprising). But before we > condemn the study, let's make sure we're condemning it for the proper > reasons (if they exist). Repeating Larry's repeat: Let me repeat what they said, "Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias..." Does that sound like looking for the general kind of bias, or the specific kind? Do they have a theory they are trying to fit the data too, or are they using the data to define the theory? Not that we're still talking about that one, but it seems like you'd want to take it with salt, so to speak. Bias is interesting. I love the concept, and how it ties to quantum physics. Observe! True Objectively? *cough* currently impossible *cough*. -- Objectivity: A Valiant Effort ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:277075 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
