Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

fedfem · Jun 5, 2005, 06:36 pm

The word is tossed around but what does it mean exactly. Bias towards a political persuasion or a religion or an economic philosophy is pretty much easy to identify but bias towards or against an individual is illogical be it Bush or Chomsky or any other popular figure because they are seen to be the other side without reading or listening to what they are really saying.

I think it is scary that so many have taken the "either with us or against us" view of every issue brought up.

Another thread brings up bias in schools which is laughable since that is what schools are there to teach--critical thinking which as most know is a protection against blindly accepting anything without thinking it through.

History has shown us that blindly following a leader in the name of nationalism or patriotism is dangerous.(Hitler)

Our government was founded as to protect the people from tyranny by always keeping our leaders in check with balances, a free press and open society. One of the reasons young people tend to be the first protesters of government on the street is due to the fresh knowledge they have just gleaned. Their bias towards founding principals and constitutional rights is a positive thing and far from being un-american as is the charge by many.

Anyway, what do you mean when you use the term "biased."

Gorgo · Jun 5, 2005, 06:54 pm

"You've made the astounding comment that objectivity and scholarship in the media and elsewhere is not only "harmful and misleading, it's not desirable.""

"I've said two things about it. One, that it's not possible. Two, it's not desirable. It's not possible because all history is a selection out of an infinite number of facts. As soon as you begin to select, you select according to what you think is important. Therefore it is already not objective. It's already biased in the direction of whatever you, as the selector of this information, think people should know. So it's really not possible. Of course, some people claim to be objective. The worst thing is to claim to be objective. Of course you can't be. Historians should say what their values are, what they care about, what their background is, and let you know what is important to them so that young people and everybody who reads history are warned in advance that they should never count on any one source, but should go to many sources. So it's not possible to be objective, and it's not desirable if it were possible. We should have history that does reflect points of view and values, in other words, history that is not objective. We should have history that enhances human values, humane values, values of brotherhood, sisterhood, peace, justice and equality. The closest I can get to it is the values enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Equality, the right of all people to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are values that historians should actively promulgate in writing history. In doing that they needn't distort or omit important things. But it does mean if they have those values in mind, that they will emphasize those things in history which will bring up a new generation of people who read history books and who will care about treating other people equally, about doing away with war, about justice in every form.

How do you filter those biases, or can you even filter them?

As I've said, yes, I have my biases, my leanings. So if I'm writing or speaking about Columbus, I will try not to hide, omit the fact that Columbus did a remarkable thing in crossing the ocean and venturing out into uncharted waters. It took physical courage and navigational skill. It was a remarkable event. I have to say that so that I don't omit what people see as the positive side of Columbus. But then I have to go on to say the other things about Columbus which are much more important than his navigational skill, than the fact that he was a religious man. That is how he treated the human beings that he found in this hemisphere. The enslavement, the torture, the murder, the dehumanization of these people. That is the important thing.

There's an interesting way in which you can frame a sentence which will show what you emphasize and which will have two very different results. Here's what I mean. Take Columbus as an example. You can frame it, and this was the way the Harvard historian Samuel Eliot Morison in effect framed it in his biography of Columbus: Columbus committed genocide, but he was a wonderful sailor. He did a remarkable and extraordinary thing in finding these islands in the Western Hemisphere. Where's the emphasis there? He committed genocide, but ... He's a good sailor. I say, He was a good sailor, but he treated people with the most horrible cruelty. Those are two different ways of saying the same facts. Depending on which side of the buck you're on, you show your bias. I believe that it's good for us to put our biases in the direction of a humane view of history."

Professor Emeritus Howard Zinn-

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barzinn.htm

belverron · Jun 5, 2005, 06:57 pm

Beware of that guy. He tends to make you Zinnical.

Is that an excerpt from A People's History of the United States of America, do you know?

Never mind, I see. If ever you want to read an unashemdly biased work, go to that book.

belverron · Jun 5, 2005, 07:00 pm

For clarification's sake, when I said "unashamedly biased," I did intend it as a compliment.

fedfem · Jun 5, 2005, 07:10 pm

Good example and I agree with what Zinn says however, he shows two ways to present a fact but the facts are sitll there. Columbus was a good sailer and was cruel. Bias would be only telling one side and denying the other fact

Let's use debate as an example...(real debate, not some of the tripe here)

Can you imagine arguing a position without knowing the other side? Impossible to effectively debate.

Inferno · Jun 6, 2005, 01:32 pm

Well in my opion if some one is Bias against some it normall yfor the Social class, color, party and so forth but some biases should be aloud in sertain cases like a crimianls it been proven through research that for example that 90ish% of White Males are the ones that committ Rape on Woman of any color For Example but you should not be bias against some one joining an organization because of there color.

castille · Jun 6, 2005, 02:08 pm

Bias is any sort of opinion at all.

My computer isn't biased.

RickSp · Jun 6, 2005, 02:16 pm

Bias is "a line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias."

I hope that we have that cleared up now.

Jun 5, 2005, 06:36 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	What is Bias? The word is tossed around but what does it mean exactly. Bias towards a political persuasion or a religion or an economic philosophy is pretty much easy to identify but bias towards or against an individual is illogical be it Bush or Chomsky or any other popular figure because they are seen to be the other side without reading or listening to what they are really saying. I think it is scary that so many have taken the "either with us or against us" view of every issue brought up. Another thread brings up bias in schools which is laughable since that is what schools are there to teach--critical thinking which as most know is a protection against blindly accepting anything without thinking it through. History has shown us that blindly following a leader in the name of nationalism or patriotism is dangerous.(Hitler) Our government was founded as to protect the people from tyranny by always keeping our leaders in check with balances, a free press and open society. One of the reasons young people tend to be the first protesters of government on the street is due to the fresh knowledge they have just gleaned. Their bias towards founding principals and constitutional rights is a positive thing and far from being un-american as is the charge by many. Anyway, what do you mean when you use the term "biased."

Jun 5, 2005, 06:57 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
belverron Beloved Truth-Dragon Location: Texas Posts: 1,304	Beware of that guy. He tends to make you Zinnical. Is that an excerpt from A People's History of the United States of America, do you know? Never mind, I see. If ever you want to read an unashemdly biased work, go to that book. If only I could saith, so should I. Last edited by belverron; Jun 5, 2005 at 06:59 pm. Reason: Actually read preceding post.

Jun 5, 2005, 07:00 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
belverron Beloved Truth-Dragon Location: Texas Posts: 1,304	For clarification's sake, when I said "unashamedly biased," I did intend it as a compliment. If only I could saith, so should I.

Jun 6, 2005, 02:08 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Bias is any sort of opinion at all. My computer isn't biased. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Jun 6, 2005, 02:16 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	Bias is "a line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias." I hope that we have that cleared up now. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Jun 5, 2005, 06:54 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	"You've made the astounding comment that objectivity and scholarship in the media and elsewhere is not only "harmful and misleading, it's not desirable."" "I've said two things about it. One, that it's not possible. Two, it's not desirable. It's not possible because all history is a selection out of an infinite number of facts. As soon as you begin to select, you select according to what you think is important. Therefore it is already not objective. It's already biased in the direction of whatever you, as the selector of this information, think people should know. So it's really not possible. Of course, some people claim to be objective. The worst thing is to claim to be objective. Of course you can't be. Historians should say what their values are, what they care about, what their background is, and let you know what is important to them so that young people and everybody who reads history are warned in advance that they should never count on any one source, but should go to many sources. So it's not possible to be objective, and it's not desirable if it were possible. We should have history that does reflect points of view and values, in other words, history that is not objective. We should have history that enhances human values, humane values, values of brotherhood, sisterhood, peace, justice and equality. The closest I can get to it is the values enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Equality, the right of all people to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are values that historians should actively promulgate in writing history. In doing that they needn't distort or omit important things. But it does mean if they have those values in mind, that they will emphasize those things in history which will bring up a new generation of people who read history books and who will care about treating other people equally, about doing away with war, about justice in every form. How do you filter those biases, or can you even filter them? As I've said, yes, I have my biases, my leanings. So if I'm writing or speaking about Columbus, I will try not to hide, omit the fact that Columbus did a remarkable thing in crossing the ocean and venturing out into uncharted waters. It took physical courage and navigational skill. It was a remarkable event. I have to say that so that I don't omit what people see as the positive side of Columbus. But then I have to go on to say the other things about Columbus which are much more important than his navigational skill, than the fact that he was a religious man. That is how he treated the human beings that he found in this hemisphere. The enslavement, the torture, the murder, the dehumanization of these people. That is the important thing. There's an interesting way in which you can frame a sentence which will show what you emphasize and which will have two very different results. Here's what I mean. Take Columbus as an example. You can frame it, and this was the way the Harvard historian Samuel Eliot Morison in effect framed it in his biography of Columbus: Columbus committed genocide, but he was a wonderful sailor. He did a remarkable and extraordinary thing in finding these islands in the Western Hemisphere. Where's the emphasis there? He committed genocide, but ... He's a good sailor. I say, He was a good sailor, but he treated people with the most horrible cruelty. Those are two different ways of saying the same facts. Depending on which side of the buck you're on, you show your bias. I believe that it's good for us to put our biases in the direction of a humane view of history." Professor Emeritus Howard Zinn- http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barzinn.htm

Jun 5, 2005, 07:10 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Good example and I agree with what Zinn says however, he shows two ways to present a fact but the facts are sitll there. Columbus was a good sailer and was cruel. Bias would be only telling one side and denying the other fact Let's use debate as an example...(real debate, not some of the tripe here) Can you imagine arguing a position without knowing the other side? Impossible to effectively debate.

Jun 6, 2005, 01:32 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Inferno Insert Title Here Location: Illinois Posts: 8	Well in my opion if some one is Bias against some it normall yfor the Social class, color, party and so forth but some biases should be aloud in sertain cases like a crimianls it been proven through research that for example that 90ish% of White Males are the ones that committ Rape on Woman of any color For Example but you should not be bias against some one joining an organization because of there color.