fair?
Our sense of what is 'fair and balance' and 'unbiased' is formed by looking at a single point of view from both sides, so analysing the pros and cons for a point made. This way of approaching something from a so called 'objective point of view' is in itself biased becuase it takes the point of view to be true and objective and so discussing the pros and cons of the point made rather useless. I think that this is very misleading. An unbiased and an objective conclusion can be made from a point of view by analysing and studying the evidence used to make the 'point', and then further analysing if the conclusion made in the 'point' holds up to the evidence and whether any other conclusions, maybe even conflicting conclusions, can be made from the pieces of evidence used to support the original point. The evidence's veracity should also be examined.
A lot of the points made above are often used by scientists researching a particular topic and their analyses incorporate all of the ideas above (and even more) when drawing conclusions from data gathered. The fairness of the experiment is usually thought out before the experiment is carried out and usually takes the form of controls, as well as all the other factors that can influence the data. But this isn't the reason for the post. The reason why I wrote the first paragraph is because all of the principles above (and many more) apply not only to Science but wherever a point is being made.
One of the biggest abuses of 'fairness' are carried out by the media and to some extent us, the people: whether it's reading newspapers, reading articles on the internet, or watching the news on TV. We all read news articles on the internet; on news websites and blogs. And people tend to comment on what they make of the article in question and there's usually a vast array of people commenting, some denounce it as utter rubbish whereas others agree at the points made. This is misleading. Very few people ever read an article and check all the sources used and if they corroborate with the points the writer is trying to make. Doing this leads to a meaningful debate. We should be discussing whether points of views put forward in an article support all the evidence used and whether someone can conclude something entirely different. In effect, we are taking the article in question as 'the truth'. Some articles, when read, seem heavily biased, and we are quick to denounce it as propaganda and the writer as being partisan (either Left or the Right, doesn't matter), but we usually never go back (like I've said) to see whether the sources corroborate the writers point of view, and also whether the sources are in themselves objective.
People shouldn't be expected to, nor do they have the time to be this thorough with everything they read. But what people could do is read with an air of scepticism, especially when statistics are used and numbers are thrown around everywhere. Though I think it becomes a moral duty for a person to be as thorough as I've outlined above, when a country's prime minister/president takes them to war, then I think people should be scrupulous in holding their government to their word.
Comments
If one had to check all the sources used before commenting on a Vox post, there would be little of it around.
But, hey - it makes for interesting reading!
You said, " the principles above (and many more) apply not only to Science but wherever a point is being made."
Whoa! Are you suggesting that there are NOT lots of topics, lots of cultures, lots of communities, lots of discourse types and lots of conversational agendas? Are you suggesting that the huge variety of types of conversation should ALL be subject to the same rules? To YOUR rules?
Every context has its own rules, whether you like it or not. Every conversation, every speech community, is going to assume some rules and then break some rules and then change some rules. To say all talk has to be subject to some dogmatic logic of science (as stated by you) is to deny the validity of how MOST of the people in the world talk about most things.
That is a whole lot of denial, isn't it?
I never founded these principles, if can even call them that. It just outlines a way of analysis and a lot of people do that anyway. I am not suggesting 'there are NOT lots of topics, lots of cultures, lots of communities, lots of discourse types and lots of conversational agendas', but that there should be more.
'Are you suggesting that the huge variety of types of conversation should ALL be subject to the same rules? To YOUR rules?' I don't consider these rules, but i call for objectivity and good evidence based reasoning. i'm sure that's not controversial. These ideas seem to very vague so it doesn't befit anything in particular. I mention science because it's a prime example of evidence based reasoning.
I do not consider them dogmatic, becuase they call for people to think for themselves and reason in the first place, so what i'm saying is rather the opposite. I don't deny how most of the world talk about most things, becuase discussing ideas in general is good. To be honest is a rant on journalists who don't back a lot of what they say with hard evidence and usually ends up being opinion. If the journalists are less partisan, then people aren't fed with this partisan opinion politics so people aren't required to go out of their way to discover the real facts and the story. None the less, people shouldn't research each article they read, but like i say, if the governmets taking the country to war, then people should research the sources and evidence. I f the journalists did their job right, this wouldn't be required of people.
i'm pretty sure i never said anything controversial there. maybe i wasn't clear enough?
In science (this is what defines it) you must be objective (as possible), and use facts (which ones?) and logic (which kind?). Great. No problem with applying those standards to that field.
Other types of discourse have other rules, all of which are constructed by the communities in which they function.
I hope, Mr Nice, that you are not suggesting here that poets, preachers, mystics, therapists, coaches, music critics, neighbors, salespeople, motivational speakers and advertising copywriters all follow the same rules as scientists?
Since I usually go further, I could go further here, to suggest that the rules of evidence and argumentation VARY between sciences. Get some geologists and linguists together over lunch to talk about psychology and you will quickly find out that what is acceptably scientific for one group is not for the other group.
Your suggestions that people think objectively is usually good advice.
There are other ways, however, to read and think critically, apart from objectivity. Like examining the logic and structure of an argument. Usually that is a QUICKER way to sort out good stuff from bad stuff.
m