NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen this in other threads as well as the one I've just created. I think this is a general problem around the place. Bias in itself is not an argumenent. If you consider the source of the argument one that has an interest in putting that argument forward that doenst stop the infomation they are quoting as being accurate or the arguments they are using being sound. Crying bias by providence does not demolish an argument. What you have to do (shock horror) is to PROVE the bias has effected the validity of the evidence and arguments by showing how they are flawed. You have to show bias in terms of the content, not the providence.

I've seen this in other threads as well as the one I've just created. I think this is a general problem around the place. Bias in itself is not an argumenent. If you consider the source of the argument one that has an interest in putting that argument forward that doenst stop the infomation they are quoting as being accurate or the arguments they are using being sound. Crying bias by providence does not demolish an argument. What you have to do (shock horror) is to PROVE the bias has effected the validity of the evidence and arguments by showing how they are flawed. You have to show bias in terms of the content, not the providence.

Here here. And my apologies in advance (and retroactive) if I'm ever guilty of this argument faux pas.

I've seen this in other threads as well as the one I've just created. I think this is a general problem around the place. Bias in itself is not an argumenent. If you consider the source of the argument one that has an interest in putting that argument forward that doenst stop the infomation they are quoting as being accurate or the arguments they are using being sound. Crying bias by providence does not demolish an argument. What you have to do (shock horror) is to PROVE the bias has effected the validity of the evidence and arguments by showing how they are flawed. You have to show bias in terms of the content, not the providence.

Finally, someone realizes this. Oh, wait this sort of thing has never involved me here . . . oh well. Good anyway.

Good point.

Bias in itself is not an argumenent. If you consider the source of the argument one that has an interest in putting that argument forward that doenst stop the infomation they are quoting as being accurate or the arguments they are using being sound. Crying bias by providence does not demolish an argument. What you have to do (shock horror) is to PROVE the bias has effected the validity of the evidence and arguments by showing how they are flawed. You have to show bias in terms of the content, not the providence.
Further, this is EXACTLY the standard by which you shall be ever judged here.
Saving for posterity.
Also, i would largely agree. You can understand when someone recognizes the undercurrents of flamebaiting, though, and some people don't step into the trap. Sometimes they'll spring it by pointing out early that they see it coming.

I've seen this in other threads as well as the one I've just created. I think this is a general problem around the place. Bias in itself is not an argumenent. If you consider the source of the argument one that has an interest in putting that argument forward that doenst stop the infomation they are quoting as being accurate or the arguments they are using being sound. Crying bias by providence does not demolish an argument. What you have to do (shock horror) is to PROVE the bias has effected the validity of the evidence and arguments by showing how they are flawed. You have to show bias in terms of the content, not the providence.
Quite true, quite true. On that same token, one must realize that extreme bias--as, for instance, in the case of article on how the war in Iraq was not for oil(for the record I neither believe nor disbelieve that it was for oil)--that it is most likely clouded. Of course, you still need to disprove it, but the more obvious and extreme the bias, the greater the chance of skewed arguments.

Of course, you still need to disprove it, but the more obvious and extreme the bias, the greater the chance of skewed arguments.As well the likelihood of immediate tangent and digression.

As well the likelihood of immediate tangent and digression.
Aye, that too.

Aye, that too.
Especially if you're one of those nefarious "'jackers" i keep posting with ... erm, hearing about.

I recommend cuttingOriginally Posted by Charles A. Kohlhaas, former Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, has worked for, founded, managed, and consulted for major and independent companies in the international oil and gas industry
Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than the current attempt to portray military action against Iraq as "for the oil". out of the article, if'n you want to avoid them seeing the bias too quickly.

I recommend cuttingout of the article, if'n you want to avoid them seeing the bias too quickly.
Perhaps ... good point. *bows*

Bias can be used to discredit the person making the argument, and since the article started with a lengthy discription of just why we should take this guy seriously, it could be considered valid.

Bias can be used to discredit the person making the argument, and since the article started with a lengthy discription of just why we should take this guy seriously, it could be considered valid.

Was that before or after "Charles A. Kohlhaas...has worked for, founded, managed, and consulted for major and independent companies in the international oil and gas industry" and "...the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left..."?

It is right before he calls the American left morally bankrupt.

I recommend cuttingout of the article, if'n you want to avoid them seeing the bias too quickly.

Oops. I thought he was talking about philosophical bias of posters.
The thing you quoted is an example of material bias (I can't find a better name for it), which is entirely different and definitely should be taken into account.

Oops. I thought he was talking about philosophical bias of posters.
The thing you quoted is an example of material bias (I can't find a better name for it), which is entirely different.
Okay: the clue here is the term MORALLY. (As in this case:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10909035&postcount=13)
Specifically from the article:
political and moral bankruptcy
When that term is used, it is pretty clearly a philosophical qualification.
NOT material. As is the "political" statement, which when defining one group against another in said arena, is blatantly philosophical.

Okay: the clue here is the term MORALLY.
When that term is used, it is pretty clearly a philosophical qualification.
NOT material.

And politically. And his material stake in these sorts of things from the sentence before that.

And politically. And his material stake in these sorts of things from the sentence before that.
You're right. Serves me for trying to watch The Greatest American Hero at the same time as a thread about logical procedure.
My bad.

People who post in political debate forums are biased, of course. Debate is about opinions and interpretation of facts, so it's all about bias. "Winners" of debates are those who are best able to persuade others to agree with their baises or to disagree with their opponents' biases. A debate forum, after all, is not an evidentiary hearing -- we're not proving any facts here.

But it's a different story when it comes to the sources we post in support of our arguments. Those are supposed to contain facts, and if they are too biased, it can be fatal to their value as support.

For instance, Adriatica's argument in the other thread is that the Iraq war isn't about oil. He cites an article written by an oil company executive in support. Now, if the article contains a lot of factual information that can be checked for truth and might be found in other sources as well, then his bias as an oil-man will not be fatal.

But if the author uses his article to denounce an entire segment of the American public (the "left," whatever that means in the US) as "politically and morally bankrupt" (emotionally provocative language expressing opinion), this indicates that the author's bias is so extreme that it is fatal to his value as a supporting source. The article fails to identify who he thinks is in this "left." He fails to prove his assertion that they are "morally bankrupt." How does believing that oil was a motive for starting the war mean that a person is "morally bankrupt"? The remark is so hostile, it throws his motive for writing the article into question. It is so unsupported, that it throws his methodology into question. If he says something this outrageous in his article, why should we trust that the rest of it is not similarly outrageous and unsupported opinion as well, masquerading as fact?

When posters use such biased sources, it makes them look equally biased. Also, the flaws in the source's methodology become the flaws in the poster's argument, by association. By using such a biased source, the poster defeats himself by giving his opponents material to use against him.

I recommend cutting
Originally Posted by Charles A. Kohlhaas, former Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, has worked for, founded, managed, and consulted for major and independent companies in the international oil and gas industry
Nothing demonstrates the political and moral bankruptcy of the American liberal left more clearly than the current attempt to portray military action against Iraq as "for the oil".
out of the article, if'n you want to avoid them seeing the bias too quickly.
Actually, cutting that would be a bad thing to do. If you're going to use a biased source, you should always acknowledge the bias and be prepared to explain why it doesn't affect the value of the source. Lots of posters try to hide the bias of their sources, only to have it thrown up to them by opponents who take the trouble to read the source themselves. Getting caught trying to hide the bias of a source destroys a poster's credibility.

People who post in political debate forums are biased, of course. Debate is about opinions and interpretation of facts, so it's all about bias. "Winners" of debates are those who are best able to persuade others to agree with their baises or to disagree with their opponents' biases. A debate forum, after all, is not an evidentiary hearing -- we're not proving any facts here.

But it's a different story when it comes to the sources we post in support of our arguments. Those are supposed to contain facts, and if they are too biased, it can be fatal to their value as support.

For instance, Adriatica's argument in the other thread is that the Iraq war isn't about oil. He cites an article written by an oil company executive in support. Now, if the article contains a lot of factual information that can be checked for truth and might be found in other sources as well, then his bias as an oil-man will not be fatal.

But if the author uses his article to denounce an entire segment of the American public (the "left," whatever that means in the US) as "politically and morally bankrupt" (emotionally provocative language expressing opinion), this indicates that the author's bias is so extreme that it is fatal to his value as a supporting source. The article fails to identify who he thinks is in this "left." He fails to prove his assertion that they are "morally bankrupt." How does believing that oil was a motive for starting the war mean that a person is "morally bankrupt"? The remark is so hostile, it throws his motive for writing the article into question. It is so unsupported, that it throws his methodology into question. If he says something this outrageous in his article, why should we trust that the rest of it is not similarly outrageous and unsupported opinion as well, masquerading as fact?

When posters use such biased sources, it makes them look equally biased. Also, the flaws in the source's methodology become the flaws in the poster's argument, by association. By using such a biased source, the poster defeats himself by giving his opponents material to use against him.
Indeed a "Galaxian Warrior", MASter. *bows*

Actually, cutting that would be a bad thing to do. If you're going to use a biased source, you should always acknowledge the bias and be prepared to explain why it doesn't affect the value of the source. Lots of posters try to hide the bias of their sources, only to have it thrown up to them by opponents who take the trouble to read the source themselves. Getting caught trying to hide the bias of a source destroys a poster's credibility.

Perhaps, but I figure it's he sort of thing you'd want at the end or something, so as to get people to actually read the article. Most people stop after "bankrupt" and realizing Addy here posted it.

Crying bias by providence does not demolish an argument. What you have to do (shock horror) is to PROVE the bias has effected the validity of the evidence and arguments by showing how they are flawed. You have to show bias in terms of the content, not the providence.
True, but on certain topics it is a relatively safe assumption that certain sources are going to be biased based on experience with them.

BTW ... it's "provenance." :)

Perhaps, but I figure it's he sort of thing you'd want at the end or something, so as to get people to actually read the article. Most people stop after "bankrupt" and realizing Addy here posted it.
Most people can't see past a bias. Either they hate it and stop reading, or they love it and buy everything the person says. When I look for sources, I reject a lot of articles if I think the author's bias will be a problem. If a source is really good, but the author is any way controversial, I note the bias up front, at the beginning and explain exactly how I'm using the source and why the bias will not affect my argument. Then I highlight the parts I want them to look at.

Sometimes I do the same thing to prove the lack of bias in a source, if my opponent is especially hostile.

Indeed a "Galaxian Warrior", MASter. *bows*
I thank your lordship. *returns bows in courtly manner*

Argument is an artform for which I, it seems, have a native talent. At least, I've been doing it since I learned to talk -- even before, if my mom is to be believed. She is so happy that I found this forum. ;)

(EDIT: PS: I worked for lawyers for over 12 years. Learned all kinds of tips.)

Post 18
You wanna do an endzone dance with that? Throw your jersey in the crowd? At the very least, take a bow. I'll stand in substance.

You wanna do an endzone dance with that? Throw your jersey in the crowd? At the very least, take a bow. I'll stand in substance.
What can I say? I guess I've made a bit of a study of it because I really like to win arguments. :)

What can I say? I guess I've made a bit of a study of it because I really like to win arguments. :)
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/1356.gif

Bias can be used to discredit the person making the argument, and since the article started with a lengthy discription of just why we should take this guy seriously, it could be considered valid.

Bias does not discredit the argument he uses unless the evidence he or she bases it on is flawed or misrepresented somehow. And that you have to prove. You cant just say "well it must be flawed/missrepresented because she/he is an X/Y/Z etc". You have to prove it.

I agree with this, but, when someone tells you to do something, motive is always an acceptable line of questioning.

Bias does not discredit the argument he uses unless the evidence he or she bases it on is flawed or misrepresented somehow. And that you have to prove. You cant just say "well it must be flawed/missrepresented because she/he is an X/Y/Z etc". You have to prove it.
Incorrect. The person asserting the argument is responsible for proving it. All the opponent has to do is show reasonable doubt as to its veracity. He can do this by casting reasonable doubt on the source of your supporting evidence.

But it has to be reasonable doubt. It can't just be "those-damned-left/rightwingers will say anything." They have to be able to point to something in the source material that shows a clear bias that is extreme enough to undermine what the source is saying. But alll they have to do is show the actual bias, not disprove the facts asserted.

For instance, if your article, written by an oil-man, contained checkable facts and no reference to "political and moral bankruptcy" of anyone, then anyone who tried to dismiss it only because it was written by an oil company exec would fail. Then they would have to focus on the facts and come up with counter evidence from some other source.

But since the author of the article did condemn those with opposing views as "politically and morally bankrupt," he essentially shot himself (and you) in the foot but showing a bias so extreme that it destroys his credibility -- and yours by association. You said it yourself -- the argument is discredited if the evidence is misrepresented. The opposition's argument becomes that the author of the source evidence is misrepresenting it because of his bias.

Incorrect. The person asserting the argument is responsible for proving it. All the opponent has to do is show reasonable doubt as to its veracity. He can do this by casting reasonable doubt on the source of your supporting evidence.

No, if an opponant says to a source 'its biased' and says so because of the provenance, then that in itself is not a bad thing. What has to be shown is that the bias has somehow corrupted the points being made through such as misrepresntation of facts


But it has to be reasonable doubt. It can't just be "those-damned-left/rightwingers will say anything." They have to be able to point to something in the source material that shows a clear bias that is extreme enough to undermine what the source is saying. But alll they have to do is show the actual bias, not disprove the facts asserted.

Bias in itself is nothing but the opinion of the author. Those arguing against it have to show (if they cry bias) that the bias has damaged the argument itself. Bias alone means little. It has to be shown how the bias has affected the argument


For instance, if your article, written by an oil-man, contained checkable facts and no reference to "political and moral bankruptcy" of anyone, then anyone who tried to dismiss it only because it was written by an oil company exec would fail. Then they would have to focus on the facts and come up with counter evidence from some other source.

But since the author of the article did condemn those with opposing views as "politically and morally bankrupt," he essentially shot himself (and you) in the foot but showing a bias so extreme that it destroys his credibility -- and yours by association. You said it yourself -- the argument is discredited if the evidence is misrepresented. The opposition's argument becomes that the author of the source evidence is misrepresenting it because of his bias.

Creadability has nothing to do with it. You have to show how his opinion has caused him to misrepresent the facts. You cant just say "He is of X persuasion so anything he says on Y subject is biased and can be discounted" you have to actually deal with the points that are raised. Not just dismiss them because of their origin. If they are wrong it should be easy to dismiss them. You have to prove how he is misreprsenting, not just assume he is because of his persuasion.

bump

bump

bump
She gots the weekend off.
What are you anyway, a masochist? :rolleyes:
(BTW don't bother replying for my sake - AFC)

Oh, I'm sorry, have I kept you waiting, Adriatica? I was off toddling round in the sunshine with me mum, looking at art and trees and things. And then we went to a nice restaurant and drank tequila and cursed our enemies. :)

No, if an opponant says to a source 'its biased' and says so because of the provenance, then that in itself is not a bad thing. What has to be shown is that the bias has somehow corrupted the points being made through such as misrepresntation of facts


Bias in itself is nothing but the opinion of the author. Those arguing against it have to show (if they cry bias) that the bias has damaged the argument itself. Bias alone means little. It has to be shown how the bias has affected the argument


Creadability has nothing to do with it. You have to show how his opinion has caused him to misrepresent the facts. You cant just say "He is of X persuasion so anything he says on Y subject is biased and can be discounted" you have to actually deal with the points that are raised. Not just dismiss them because of their origin. If they are wrong it should be easy to dismiss them. You have to prove how he is misreprsenting, not just assume he is because of his persuasion.
Well, this post explains why you keep putting up unbelievable arguments in various threads, even after they have been debunked and disproven several times over.

What part of "reasonable doubt" did you not get? What part of "It can't just be 'those-damned-left/rightwingers will say anything.' They have to be able to point to something in the source material that shows a clear bias that is extreme enough to undermine what the source is saying" did you not get? What part of my saying (several times) that the mere fact that the author is an oil company exec is not an automatically fatal bias did you not get?

Credibility has everything to do with it. A racist KKK leader trying to recruit new members who says things about race is far less trustworthy on the subject than a professional geneticist writing a report for a peer-reviewed science journal. Why? Because of their motives in saying what they say. In the case of your oil exec's article, the fact that he used the article to denounce political opponents as "morally bankrupt" showed that he was motivated to write the article to attack a certain group, not to educate the public, and that his bias was so great that he was willing to make extreme and unsupported claims against the group in question. His motives and the tactics that go with them throw his credibility into question.

The bottom line is, it's up to you to prove your arguments. If the source you cite is so extremely biased that he is not credible, then you have failed to prove your argument, because your proof is not believed. If your opponent can show legitimately that the source is not trustworthy, then your source is debunked (different from disproven), and your argument is undermined. If you cannot shore it up with more data from different sources, it will collapse.