Tips For Spotting Confirmation Bias

[SkepticalDaniel]

What's the best way to spot confirmation bias on the Internet, and what is the best way to determine if a site is a good source?

[sdelsolray]

What's the best way to spot confirmation bias on the Internet, and what is the best way to determine if a site is a good source?

 

 

I came to realize its best to learn how to spot confirmation bias in myself first and that the best tools for that are intellectual honesty and education.

 

Here's a short list of things that are commonly present with confirmation bias, and use of them enables confirmation bias:

 

1)  Selected use of facts, ignoring contra-facts or outright ignoring all facts.

2)  Use of logical fallacies, particularly circular reasoning fallacy (aka begging the question) and mere assertion fallacy.  Other common ones are strawman fallacy, false dichotomy fallacy and genetic fallacy.

3)  Reliance on or invention of lies and misrepresentations.

[Storm]

I agree with sdelsolray. Understanding how your brain puts its own slant on things helps combat confirmation bias.

 

I would point out that a good source understands his/her opponent and will acknowledge (and hopefully address) the criticisms for his/her position. Addressing both sides of a position will usually help with confirmation bias on the part of the reader and, hopefully, the source as well. 

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

What's the best way to spot confirmation bias on the Internet, and what is the best way to determine if a site is a good source?

 

I came to realize its best to learn how to spot confirmation bias in myself first and that the best tools for that are intellectual honesty and education.

 

Here's a short list of things that are commonly present with confirmation bias, and use of them enables confirmation bias:

 

1) Selected use of facts, ignoring contra-facts or outright ignoring all facts.

2) Use of logical fallacies, particularly circular reasoning fallacy (aka begging the question) and mere assertion fallacy. Other common ones are strawman fallacy, false dichotomy fallacy and genetic fallacy.

3) Reliance on or invention of lies and misrepresentations.

Without a doubt jesus-is-savior.com really seems to do this.

[Vigile]

I find, even after years of understanding it quite well, that I have to constantly police myself. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Sanders campaign, but if I'm not careful, I can fill my newsfeed with pro Sanders articles and assume that they represent an objective reality, when in fact, it's merely a microcosm. The polls and campaign results are far better at showing objective reality than punditry. 

 

The same goes for the stock market. When I buy a stock or sell a stock short, I have to force myself to take the other side of the trade mentally and ask myself why are people selling when I'm buying? What are their arguments and how do they stack up against my own? It's not easy and I'm not nearly as successful at it as I'd hope to be. 

[SkepticalDaniel]

I find, even after years of understanding it quite well, that I have to constantly police myself. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Sanders campaign, but if I'm not careful, I can fill my newsfeed with pro Sanders articles and assume that they represent an objective reality, when in fact, it's merely a microcosm. The polls and campaign results are far better at showing objective reality than punditry.

 

The same goes for the stock market. When I buy a stock or sell a stock short, I have to force myself to take the other side of the trade mentally and ask myself why are people selling when I'm buying? What are their arguments and how do they stack up against my own? It's not easy and I'm not nearly as successful at it as I'd hope to be.

What would you say about a statement like this?

 

"Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God. Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God. In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims. We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself. Yet, here are more proofs if you need them. The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need."

Source: http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/gods_word.htm

I don't know about you, but that statement that this source makes seems a little off, especially since he offers no citations of discoveries.

[Vigile]

 

I find, even after years of understanding it quite well, that I have to constantly police myself. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Sanders campaign, but if I'm not careful, I can fill my newsfeed with pro Sanders articles and assume that they represent an objective reality, when in fact, it's merely a microcosm. The polls and campaign results are far better at showing objective reality than punditry.

 

The same goes for the stock market. When I buy a stock or sell a stock short, I have to force myself to take the other side of the trade mentally and ask myself why are people selling when I'm buying? What are their arguments and how do they stack up against my own? It's not easy and I'm not nearly as successful at it as I'd hope to be.

What would you say about a statement like this?

 

"Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God. Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God. In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims. We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself. Yet, here are more proofs if you need them. The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need."

Source: http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/gods_word.htm

I don't know about you, but that statement that this source makes seems a little off, especially since he offers no citations of discoveries.

 

 

Don't accept any claim without evidence to back it up. It's also spin. Very little, to none of the bible, as I understand it, has been verified via archaeology. Why, for example, is there no evidence that the Jews wandered the wilderness for 40 years? Surely they would have left quite a footprint, but none has been found. 

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

 

I find, even after years of understanding it quite well, that I have to constantly police myself. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Sanders campaign, but if I'm not careful, I can fill my newsfeed with pro Sanders articles and assume that they represent an objective reality, when in fact, it's merely a microcosm. The polls and campaign results are far better at showing objective reality than punditry.

 

The same goes for the stock market. When I buy a stock or sell a stock short, I have to force myself to take the other side of the trade mentally and ask myself why are people selling when I'm buying? What are their arguments and how do they stack up against my own? It's not easy and I'm not nearly as successful at it as I'd hope to be.

What would you say about a statement like this?

 

"Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God. Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God. In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims. We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself. Yet, here are more proofs if you need them. The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need."

Source: http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/gods_word.htm

I don't know about you, but that statement that this source makes seems a little off, especially since he offers no citations of discoveries.

Don't accept any claim without evidence to back it up. It's also spin. Very little, to none of the bible, as I understand it, has been verified via archaeology. Why, for example, is there no evidence that the Jews wandered the wilderness for 40 years? Surely they would have left quite a footprint, but none has been found.

What about the claims made by Ron Wyatt?

[sdelsolray]

 

I find, even after years of understanding it quite well, that I have to constantly police myself. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Sanders campaign, but if I'm not careful, I can fill my newsfeed with pro Sanders articles and assume that they represent an objective reality, when in fact, it's merely a microcosm. The polls and campaign results are far better at showing objective reality than punditry.

 

The same goes for the stock market. When I buy a stock or sell a stock short, I have to force myself to take the other side of the trade mentally and ask myself why are people selling when I'm buying? What are their arguments and how do they stack up against my own? It's not easy and I'm not nearly as successful at it as I'd hope to be.

What would you say about a statement like this?

 

"Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God. Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God. In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims. We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself. Yet, here are more proofs if you need them. The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need."

Source: http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/gods_word.htm

I don't know about you, but that statement that this source makes seems a little off, especially since he offers no citations of discoveries.

 

 

 

 

As to the statement from that website, here's a short deconstruction of it, one sentence at a time (my comments in BLUE):

 

Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God.

 

Mere assertion fallacy.  No definition of the "Word of God".  Capitalizations of "Word" and "God" show initial bias.

 

Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God.

 

Another mere assertion.  There is plenty of archeological evidence which falsifies certain claims in the Bible.  Thus, the writer is ignoring some evidence.

 

In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims.

 

Mere assertion, no evidence provided to support the claim.  Even if evidence exists supporting some Biblical claims (e.g., existence of Tyre, existence of Pontius Pilate or some other mudance fact) that doesn't necessarily act as evidence of other, more "magical" claims.

 

We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself.

 

Circular reasoning fallacy.  You can't use claims in the Bible as evidence to support the same claims in the Bible.

 

Yet, here are more proofs if you need them.

 

I haven't looked at the additional "proofs".  I suspect they will have similar problems.

 

The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need.

 

Yes, the writer should speak for himself.  This is the writer's admission of his own confirmation bias.  

 

Source: http://jesus-is-savi...e/gods_word.htm

 

I looked at the website.  Same nonsense, full of unsupported assertions, logical fallacies and emotionally-charged wishful thinking (i.e., personal bias).  Classic confirmation bias, among other things.

 

Basically, the writer is full of shit.

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

 

I find, even after years of understanding it quite well, that I have to constantly police myself. For instance, I'm a big fan of the Sanders campaign, but if I'm not careful, I can fill my newsfeed with pro Sanders articles and assume that they represent an objective reality, when in fact, it's merely a microcosm. The polls and campaign results are far better at showing objective reality than punditry.

 

The same goes for the stock market. When I buy a stock or sell a stock short, I have to force myself to take the other side of the trade mentally and ask myself why are people selling when I'm buying? What are their arguments and how do they stack up against my own? It's not easy and I'm not nearly as successful at it as I'd hope to be.

What would you say about a statement like this?

 

"Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God. Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God. In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims. We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself. Yet, here are more proofs if you need them. The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need."

Source: http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/gods_word.htm

I don't know about you, but that statement that this source makes seems a little off, especially since he offers no citations of discoveries.

 

 

 

 

As to the statement from that website, here's a short deconstruction of it, one sentence at a time (my comments in BLUE):

 

Archaeology is in agreement with the Word of God.

 

Mere assertion fallacy.  No definition of the "Word of God".  Capitalizations of "Word" and "God" show initial bias.

 

Not one spadefull of dirt has ever been uncovered to disprove the Word of God.

 

Another mere assertion.  There is plenty of archeological evidence which falsifies certain claims in the Bible.  Thus, the writer is ignoring some evidence.

 

In fact, many Archaeological expeditions have provided substantial evidence in support of Biblical claims.

 

Mere assertion, no evidence provided to support the claim.  Even if evidence exists supporting some Biblical claims (e.g., existence of Tyre, existence of Pontius Pilate or some other mudance fact) that doesn't necessarily act as evidence of other, more "magical" claims.

 

We don't need Archeology to prove the Bible, the Bible is evidence enough by itself.

 

Circular reasoning fallacy.  You can't use claims in the Bible as evidence to support the same claims in the Bible.

 

Yet, here are more proofs if you need them.

 

I haven't looked at the additional "proofs".  I suspect they will have similar problems.

 

The Bible Itself is all the evidence I need.

 

Yes, the writer should speak for himself.  This is the writer's admission of his own confirmation bias.  

 

Source: http://jesus-is-savi...e/gods_word.htm

 

I looked at the website.  Same nonsense, full of unsupported assertions, logical fallacies and emotionally-charged wishful thinking (i.e., personal bias).  Classic confirmation bias, among other things.

 

Basically, the writer is full of shit.

 

Oh yes, so basically, jesus-is-savior.com fails the CRAAP test?

[sdelsolray]

...

Oh yes, so basically, jesus-is-savior.com fails the CRAAP test?

 

 

In a prior post (see below) you said you were going to study non-religious stuff and not study religious BS.  How's that going?

 

...

My plan is to exercise, study (not religious BS) and be around people.

...

 

 

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

...

Oh yes, so basically, jesus-is-savior.com fails the CRAAP test?

 

 

In a prior post (see below) you said you were going to study non-religious stuff and not study religious BS.  How's that going?

 

...

My plan is to exercise, study (not religious BS) and be around people.

...

 

 

 

It's going good. Just struggling to find good study sources. Again, I'm so sorry for the OCD.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

...

Oh yes, so basically, jesus-is-savior.com fails the CRAAP test?

 

 

In a prior post (see below) you said you were going to study non-religious stuff and not study religious BS.  How's that going?

 

...

My plan is to exercise, study (not religious BS) and be around people.

...

 

 

 

It's going good. Just struggling to find good study sources. Again, I'm so sorry for the OCD.

 

 

 

Don't be sorry.  It's quite positive that you can identify it within yourself in realtime, i.e., when it is happening.  That's more than half the battle right there.  Learning how to cope with it, how to mitigate it and how to have control over it will take some time, but none of that is hard stuff.  It just takes time and the help of the secular mental health professional of your choosing.

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

 

 

...

Oh yes, so basically, jesus-is-savior.com fails the CRAAP test?

 

 

In a prior post (see below) you said you were going to study non-religious stuff and not study religious BS.  How's that going?

 

...

My plan is to exercise, study (not religious BS) and be around people.

...

 

 

 

It's going good. Just struggling to find good study sources. Again, I'm so sorry for the OCD.

 

 

 

Don't be sorry.  It's quite positive that you can identify it within yourself in realtime, i.e., when it is happening.  That's more than half the battle right there.  Learning how to cope with it, how to mitigate it and how to have control over it will take some time, but none of that is hard stuff.  It just takes time and the help of the secular mental health professional of your choosing.

 

Secular mental health was forbidden in the IFB.

[sdelsolray]

...

Secular mental health was forbidden in the IFB.

 

 

 

It still is, correct (i.e., the IFB currently forbids secular mental health)?  

 

So what?

 

Are you bound by what the little shits at IFB say?

 

Try thinking for yourself.  It works, and works well.

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

...

Secular mental health was forbidden in the IFB.

 

 

 

It still is, correct (i.e., the IFB currently forbids secular mental health)?  

 

So what?

 

Are you bound by what the little shits at IFB say?

 

Try thinking for yourself.  It works, and works well.

 

Think for myself! I will! I won't try, I will!

[sdelsolray]

Sorry to get off topic, but this thread is about confirmation bias and (now) about thinking for oneself. 

 

Do you see (or suspect) any confirmation bias in the writings at that website (i.e.,  jesus-is-savior.com)?

 

If so, please provide three examples.

 

Thanks!

[SkepticalDaniel]

Sorry to get off topic, but this thread is about confirmation bias and (now) about thinking for oneself. 

 

Do you see (or suspect) any confirmation bias in the writings at that website (i.e.,  jesus-is-savior.com)?

 

If so, please provide three examples.

 

Thanks!

I think I might...

 

 

"Evolution could not do what scientists foolishly claim it does. Evolution is blatant fraud, begun by occult Freemasons in the 19th century as the fulfillment of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (see 10th plank calling for public schools) to indoctrinate children. Monstrous murderer, Joseph Stalin (as well as killers Hitler, Mao and PolPot) were all devout followers of Charles Darwin's demonic falsehood, “The Origin of Species.” It was Darwin's demonic theories that lowered humans to the level of cattle, pigs and chickens to be slaughtered without conscience. Research any mass-murdering dictator's opinion of Charles Darwin and you'll see that what I say is true." SOURCE: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/is_there_a_god.htm

 

"If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution.  For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth.  Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival.  The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual.  If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years?  Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground. 

 

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today?  Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food?  This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest.  What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense.  Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.  Evolution CANNOT be repeated, CANNOT be tested, CANNOT be observed, Cannot be studied...it is NOT science.

 

God's creation is able to be studied, it is science.  Evolution makes huge ASSUMPTIONS which cannot be studied.  The only FACT which the evolutionists know for sure about the MISSING LINK is that it is STILL  MISSING." SOURCE: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution-not_science.htm

 

Bible ahead of Atlas!

• In the days of Moses it was taught that the earth was carried around on a great big strong man’s back and when he sneezed this created an earthquake.
• Later as time went on it was taught the earth was carried around on the back of a turtle.
• People also believed that the earth was flat and you could fall off the edge of the earth.

Job 26:7 — "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and  hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Job wrote this 3500 years ago.

Isaiah 40:22 — "It is  he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

Science finally caught up in the 1500’s,  Magellan sailed around the world.  I remember a song I sang as a child in school, “Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492”.  Prior to Magellan and Columbus folks believed that you could fall off the edge of the earth.  If they would have read their Bibles they would have realized that the earth was flat and was held up by nothing.  (We must remember one thing, just as there is a group today that is attempting to keep you from God’s word, there was a group then that did not want the common people to have the word of God.)

It took science a few thousand years to catch up to the Bible.  Yet folks will state the Bible is not a science book. SOURCE: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/science_is_always_behind_the%20Bible.htm

 

Here's a good example of a few.

[sdelsolray]

...

Here's a good example of a few.

 

 

 

Thank you.  Much could be said about those examples you provided.

 

Let me discuss one isolated evolutionary issue involving the giraffe (and all other mammals): the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve.

 

This nerve is traced back of early fish, where it went from the brain, passed some blood vessels near the heart and then to the gills.  In fish, this is a short path.  When amphibians and reptiles evolved from early fish, the nerve remained and added function for controlling breathing, swallowing and the larynx.  Mammals inherited it even later.  With the development of necks, the nerve continued to go down the neck, around the same blood vessels near the heart and back up the neck to the larynx.  In the giraffe, the nerve is about 15 feet long, when the direct route (brain to larynx) is a few inches.

 

Watch this video for more info:

 

[SkepticalDaniel]

Interesting.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

...

Here's a good example of a few.

 

 

 

Thank you.  Much could be said about those examples you provided.

 

Let me discuss one isolated evolutionary issue involving the giraffe (and all other mammals): the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve.

 

This nerve is traced back of early fish, where it went from the brain, passed some blood vessels near the heart and then to the gills.  In fish, this is a short path.  When amphibians and reptiles evolved from early fish, the nerve remained and added function for controlling breathing, swallowing and the larynx.  Mammals inherited it even later.  With the development of necks, the nerve continued to go down the neck, around the same blood vessels near the heart and back up the neck to the larynx.  In the giraffe, the nerve is about 15 feet long, when the direct route (brain to larynx) is a few inches.

 

Watch this video for more info:

 

 

 

Yeah, I read something about that a while back, and it was an eye-opener for how ludicrous "intelligent design" is.

[sdelsolray]

The recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve is evidence of speciation occurring in the past and supports common ancestry.  The apologetics from the ID community is quite entertaining, and full of shit.

[Cousin Ricky]

What about the claims made by Ron Wyatt?

Ron Wyatt (who was trained in nursing, not archeology) claimed to have discovered, among other things, the site of the Tower of Babel, chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, and Noah's ark. That man was a walking bucket of confirmation bias.

[SkepticalDaniel]

 

What about the claims made by Ron Wyatt?

Ron Wyatt (who was trained in nursing, not archeology) claimed to have discovered, among other things, the site of the Tower of Babel, chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, and Noah's ark. That man was a walking bucket of confirmation bias.

 

Didn't he "find" the ark?

[Vigile]

 

 

What about the claims made by Ron Wyatt?

Ron Wyatt (who was trained in nursing, not archeology) claimed to have discovered, among other things, the site of the Tower of Babel, chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, and Noah's ark. That man was a walking bucket of confirmation bias.

 

Didn't he "find" the ark?

 

 

No one found the ark. Several have pretended to though.