mentalgymnast wrote:I don't know that we would necessarily rely on what was said between Jenkins and Hamblin as 'evidence' of bias. The fact is, they come from two different worlds with different beliefs/assumptions/biases. What I haven't been able to get a handle on is whether or not Jenkins may or may not have an implicit and/or hidden bias in regards to Christianity and whether or not he believes that Jesus is Savior/Redeemer. The way that Jenkins views Christ can't help but form either implicit and/or hidden biases as he researches and forms opinions in regards to those that are professed Christians. He may come across as being unbiased in what he says.
Earlier I mentioned that folks can cover/mask their bias/prejudice. The question, at least for me, is whether or not in some way/means/fashion that bias is going to manifest itself. I'm willing to concede that in the Jenkins/Hamblin debate that Jenkins and/or Hamblin were both being 'cordial' and 'fair', and even honest as far as they may not have falsified data/information, etc. The question is whether or not either one of them may have omitted data/information that could have been laid on the table. Whether that is or isn't the case, I don't know. Unless one is really an expert it probably isn't going to be anything that can be readily viewed/seen or picked up on by the average Joe.
It is rather obvious, however, that Jenkins was on his game.
Regards,
mentalgymnast
Wait, why wouldn't the actual content of the exchange between Jenkins and Hamblin be the basis for determining whether a bias exists? If you believe someone's approach to an issue is being warped by bias, then shouldn't you be able to point out instances where this bias is demonstrated in the course of argument?
Here's what's odd about how you've approached the question of bias: you claim the presence of bias under the umbrella of the "everyone's biased" platitude on one hand, while on the other, you only relate that bias to a particular party (Jenkins) in a particular context (his views on Christ). So you invoke generalities to assert the presence of bias, but then cite specific parties as the locus of that bias. You can't have it both ways. I mean, technically you can (and you often do), but not without looking foolish. If your assertion of bias is "everyone is biased," then why are you only concerned with Jenkins's bias? What about Hamblin's? Simply saying "everyone is biased" is the same as saying nobody is--unless you're willing to point out specific instances where specific people exhibited specific biases specifically with specifics, bringing up the issue of bias carries no weight in the argument.
Here's an example: I think that you are operating under a bias to maintain your belief in the Book of Mormon. My evidence for this bias is that you conspicuously omit Hamblin from your questions of bias in the Jenkins v. Hamblin debate, despite the fact that your entire pretense for bringing up bias was to argue that "everyone is biased." If everyone is biased, why are you so fixated on Jenkins? My assertion is that this is evidence of the bias underlying your reaction--you are motivated by an instinct to protect your beliefs, which is why you introduced the issue of bias in the first place. You invoke it under the idea of the universal, ethereal bias that infects all of humanity, but you really just want to discredit the person that is threatening your belief system, which explains the inconsistency (everyone is biased, but let's just focus on Jenkins).
That's how you argue for the presence of bias. See how that works?
Now, I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist or that the only biases are those we can point to with specifics. What I am saying is that if you want to bring up the issue of bias as a way of evaluating a particular instance or idea or discussion, you need to back it up with specifics. Otherwise, it doesn't do anything to bolster one side of an argument over another. That's if you want to engage in a discussion. If you just are looking for a catch-all for special pleading, fire away.
