NationStates Jolt Archive

"Bias" is a word which in A-level history we were told to stop using for this reason. A lot of people were making the mistake that bias made a source somehow useless, whereas in history it told you how certian groups of people were thinking at the time. While a historical written source may unreliable in terms of accuracy, it is valid still as a view of opinon

However I am getting sick of people posting links, only to have them shouted down because of the type of page they come from, not the actuall evidence they contain. If the articale contains factual evidence, the only bias that there can be is that in the interpretation of those facts, not the facts themselves. People should learn this when dealing with other peoples sources.

Biased against the interpertation of bias now, are we?

"Bias" is a word which in A-level history we were told to stop using for this reason. A lot of people were making the mistake that bias made a source somehow useless, whereas in history it told you how certian groups of people were thinking at the time. While a historical written source may unreliable in terms of accuracy, it is valid still as a view of opinon

However I am getting sick of people posting links, only to have them shouted down because of the type of page they come from, not the actuall evidence they contain. If the articale contains factual evidence, the only bias that there can be is that in the interpretation of those facts, not the facts themselves. People should learn this when dealing with other peoples sources.

Valid as a view of opnion, not as a view of fact. And the amount of bias present calls into the question the validity of the 'facts' presented in the article.

I agree to some extent. I've posted material from a "biased" source and had it rejected as evidence. The material I was using was not only factually correct, but also supported by a well known and respected scholar in the field.

On the other hand, I think "biased" sourcescontain factual errors more often than more balanced sources. Rejecting something based on it's bias is often a shortcut to weeding out false statements. The problem is that not all the statements you weed out are false.

don't forget that some 'biased' sources may deliberately present the facts in a way that promotes their bias. (leaving out any contrary facts, for example)

thus, it is best to get your facts from a source that is known for presenting all of the facts, and not just the ones that promote their view.

this does not mean 'sources that show all points of view' because some of the points of view are completely unbased on fact, and should not be considered

All history is bias,

After all its written by the people who won, or sometimes lost, its never recorded by anyone completely objective.

"Bias" is a word which in A-level history we were told to stop using for this reason. A lot of people were making the mistake that bias made a source somehow useless, whereas in history it told you how certian groups of people were thinking at the time. While a historical written source may unreliable in terms of accuracy, it is valid still as a view of opinon

However I am getting sick of people posting links, only to have them shouted down because of the type of page they come from, not the actuall evidence they contain. If the articale contains factual evidence, the only bias that there can be is that in the interpretation of those facts, not the facts themselves. People should learn this when dealing with other peoples sources.

That's entirely incorrect. Obvious bias in a source makes all the evidence it presents questionable. If you can independently verify the evidence presented, then the source can be considered valid, but bias in a source can taint the information it contains.

Using your historical example, during Roman times it was extremely difficult to find written accounts of the Roman empire as viewed by outsiders. That is why the Bible is such an important historical document when studying the time period; it offers a view of the empire that wasn't blatantly pro-Roman. It is very difficult for historians to take the works of, say, Virgil, and honestly believe that his account of the empire, written while under the employ of the Emperor, is a truly factual account. His obvious bias towards the empire makes all the information he presents suspect. The bias of the source can call into question the validity of the "facts" presented.

"Bias" is a word which in A-level history we were told to stop using for this reason. A lot of people were making the mistake that bias made a source somehow useless, whereas in history it told you how certian groups of people were thinking at the time. While a historical written source may unreliable in terms of accuracy, it is valid still as a view of opinon

However I am getting sick of people posting links, only to have them shouted down because of the type of page they come from, not the actuall evidence they contain. If the articale contains factual evidence, the only bias that there can be is that in the interpretation of those facts, not the facts themselves. People should learn this when dealing with other peoples sources.

You make a good point.

Biased sources often contain "facts" that are not actually true, however.

Reliability is the real issue -- and bias may be an indicator that the source is unreliable.

Particularly on the internet there is a great deal of recycled garbage out there presented as "facts."

Bias also plays an important role in the reliability of studies. Bias in the way a study is designed and conducted can alter the "facts" that result. Add a biased reporting of results and you may have complete fiction passed off as fact.

Most true facts can be traced to reliable, objective sources. Many in these forums just can't be bothered to do their homework and turn instead to the first thing on the web that supports their view.