In class, we left off on the subject of bias and how even though nothing is completely objective, there are different degrees of how bias something is. This got me thinking of bias in general. Essentially, there are two major types of bias that I came up with: using loaded words and leaving out pieces of information.
So my first question: which one is worse? Obviously, we would want both to be minimized, but if forced to choose, is it better to leave out pieces of information or leave out as many loaded words as possible?
This also reminded me of a book I read last year- Daughter of Time. In this book, the main character was on a search to discover the true history of Richard III by reading different historical documents. However, in almost all of the books, he found pieces of the story missing. Some of the books contradicted each other. Some contained information that he was unable to find in any other document.
My next question: How do you know which piece of information to trust? At first, I thought that it would be the belief most commonly shared, but then I remembered what happened in Euro. We all had the common belief that Columbus had discovered that the world was round. However, we then learned that everyone had already known that the world was round because it was written in the bible. Therefore, how can we confirm which side of the story truly did happen if we can't find experience it for ourselves?
Mary Quien
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Personally, I find loaded words to be more tolerable than the emission of information. At least we have the liberty to interpret words as we please, while we lack the ability to invent accurate historical data. Since, like you said, we can't delete bias completely, this is a compromise I would be willing to take.
The peculiar thing about the instance in Euro is that it seems we were all taught about Columbus' supposed discovery. Did we independently perceive it as such? I find it hard to say yes, for we were young and our teacher exhibited a sense "authority", so we listened to him/her.
I guess we can't really "confirm" any story of the distant past due to our lack of experience. Even September 11th -- it occurred during our lifetime, but we were not present. We read/listened to reports, we watched the television. According to Hayakawa, reports are all we've got in terms of acquiring knowledge. I feel that their may be some contradiction in my previous statements because, "Reports adhere to the following rules: first, they are verfiable; second, they exclude, as far as possible, inferences, judgements, and the use of "loaded" words" (Hayakawa 23). Doesn't this totally rule out Bradford's writing as a report? It goes against Hayakawa's definition, which has now become our own.
(Sam Maliha)
Bias is prevalent everywhere, and at a certain point, we simply all agree with each other to hold some information as "true", or at least well-founded and well established. For example, in learning about history, of course we are free to doubt every word we read and everything we are taught. However, as Hayakawa said, we trust each other to a certain extent not to willfully deceive each other. I, for one, generally trust my textbooks.
I would say that there aren't just two types of bias: really, any time you use words at all, there already is some bias. As soon as you take an event that happened in the extensional world and map it to your intensional map, some alterations will occur, no matter how minute.
But eventually, you have to choose what to believe and what to doubt. It's a matter of personal judgment, considering that we all view bias differently.
Post a Comment