Confirmation Bias

[_beastie]

Wade,

I'm too tired to deal with your post tonight, and besides, have a request. Would you please provide a link to your website that deals with logical fallacies?

Thanks.

[_dartagnan]

All that blathering and you still don't understand what confirmation bias is.

My, I'm shocked.

[_Ray A]

This is not relevant to the topic of this thread, but I thought I'd let the more curious know the outcome of my earlier post on this thread, where I wrote:

I don't have a problem with science, and I understand the need for empirical evidence before accepting something. But what happens when you experience something, contrary to the known laws of physics, that cannot be "lab duplicated", and you have documentary evidence it happened? I guess I'm getting into metaphysics here. Can you legitimately say, "it could not have happened"?

I emailed beastie and Bryan (at his request) with a copy of my experience. Beastie's conclusion was "I'm stumped", and Bryan wrote back saying "astounding".

I just thought I'd bump this in for those who may be curious about the outcome. It's nice to have some "certification" that I haven't gone around the bend. I might discuss it at a later time and place.

[_dartagnan]

I note the irony of how quickly you dismissed, as "fantasy", my conflicting information.

I said nothing about your “information” being a fantasy. I said anyone who wants to argue that errors that result in more errors, is not problematic, must be living in fantasyland. Only in fantasyland could errors leading to problems be considered a good thing.

Slavery/Racism was based on reasoning (economics and utilitarianism). It took an appeal to emotion (civil war, and the civil rights movement) to change things. Thank heaven for what you might uninformedly call a "logical error".

“Uninformedly”?

To say slavery was done away with because of emotion alone is absurd and nobody is saying emotions are necessarily bad. Expectedly, you just don’t get it. In cases of confirmation bias, MRI studies have demonstrated that the emotion dept in the brain goes nuts when opinionated individuals are presented facts that challenge their presuppositions. The “reasoning” dept of the brain does not light up because the individual is too overcome by the negative feelings of a potentially destroyed presupposition and shattered worldview. He or she is not interested in reasoning through it because it is too painful. So the immediate reaction is to self-sooth by reinforcing the mind with those good feelings. This comes by ignoring all facts contrary to the presupposition while.

Slavery was not done away with through a systematic irrational process of ignoring facts and statistics that destroyed the premise of anti-racism. In fact, Abraham Lincoln, contrary to popular opinion, was not an anti-racist who felt overwhelmed with grief for the African American. His intention was to deport all American negros back to Africa, and had he not been assassinated this idea might have been realized.

So, given the fact of the fallen tree, you seem to view making a favorable turn an "error" and "wrong", rather than the planned route being wrong and in error to begin with? "Wow".

An error is an error. In this unique case the error might have saved someone the trouble of having to borrow someone’s chainsaw, but “on average” (your words) a tree will not be in the road, so it is best for the person to maintain the initial route plan as to avoid traffic, avoid getting lost, or whatever. Only an idiot would make the same exact cartographical error over and over because of an assumption that a tree will have fallen on Elm st. every day of the week. You are focusing on hypothetical exceptions and ignoring the general rule.

So, it is wrong to consider conflicting information (i.e alternative routes to the one that was planned), even given how it has at times worked out. Amazing.

You don’t get it, again. In CB, nothing is “considered” at all. The findings suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness. It is strictly an appeal to emotion as a means to avoid an unpleasant feeling of having one’s presuppositions destroyed. This does not apply to the intricate and strenuous political processes that helped remove slavery nor does it apply to contemplating alternative travel routes. And you have not demonstrated how “at times” anything has worked out. I provided a hypothetical scenario that is as likely to repeat itself as you going two posts in a row without a misspelled word.

[_Runtu]

The "confirmation bias" argument now officially has merit, as Pahoran is on record ridiculing it. ;)

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I'm too tired to deal with your post tonight, and besides, have a request. Would you please provide a link to your website that deals with logical fallacies? Thanks.

I look forward to your response once you are well rested and have the time to devote to it. As for my Fallacy page, it may be accessed HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade---

I could be mistaken, but I believe some good examples of CB would be your insistence on the widespread existence of "Mr D" (the original definition), and also your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge the full dictionary definition of "lie."

[_Who Knows]

...You are focusing on hypothetical exceptions and ignoring the general rule....

That's basically all that needs to be said. Well done Dart!

Hey, isn't focusing on hypothetical exceptions while ignoring the rule - a sort of confirmation bias in and of itself? ;)

[_wenglund]

Wade---

I could be mistaken, but I believe some good examples of CB would be your insistence on the widespread existence of "Mr D" (the original definition), and also your complete and utter refusal to acknowledge the full dictionary definition of "lie."

I agree...you could be mistaken. Certainly you are mistaken to assume that I have completely and utterly refused to acknowledge the full dictionary definition of "lie". In fact, if you recall correctly, I used some of your favored connotations in reference to things you have said. ;-)

Let's see if conformation bias prevents you from accepting that reality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

One of the main impediments to a fruitful discussions is divergent understandings and interpreted meanings of basic concepts.

Such appears to be the case on this thread with the meaning of the term "confirmation bias".

Since Michael Shermers article was used to introduce the subject, would anyone here be averse to using his definition:

"whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence."

From what little I have been able to read online on the subject, this definition seems to fit how psychologists and epistemologist have defined it--though some draw a distinction between confirmation bias and disconformation bias.

Can we agree on this definition?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-