{"id":9774,"date":"2012-12-20T13:55:37","date_gmt":"2012-12-20T19:55:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.discovermagazine.com\/collideascape\/?p=9774"},"modified":"2012-12-20T13:55:37","modified_gmt":"2012-12-20T19:55:37","slug":"matt-ridley-reveals-his-confirmation-bias","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.keithkloor.com\/?p=9774","title":{"rendered":"Matt Ridley Reveals His Confirmation Bias"},"content":{"rendered":"

Order Valium Online Several years ago, the BBC aired an excellent program<\/a>\u00a0called, “Science Under Attack.” It was hosted by UK Royal Society President Paul Nurse, who examined<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Xanax Online Overnight why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded – from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now I happen to think that science, generally speaking, is held in high esteem by a large percentage of people, and that scientists are widely respected. But some topics, such as evolution, GMOs, and climate change, are a continuing source of contention because of cultural and ideological factors<\/a>. There is a political dimension to this, too, but I don’t ascribe as much importance to it as some<\/a>\u00a0do<\/a>.<\/p>\n

https://www.secpeinvestments.com/rentals/ The majority of us (who are too busy working, parenting, watching sports, and playing video games) tend to get our information from sources that we trust. It’s a convenient shortcut. Our trusted information brokers are usually determined by tribal affiliation. (Fox News or MSNBC, the\u00a0Guardian<\/em> or the\u00a0Daily Telegraph<\/em>?) There is a problem with this selection process, however. It’s addled by what is known as confirmation bias<\/a>, or\u00a0what Nicholas Kristof has described<\/a> as “selective truth-seeking.”<\/p>\n

To be sure, we are all guilty of this to some extent, myself included. To combat our own biases, some of us (and everybody reading this blog, of course) deliberately seek out perspectives from people outside our tribe. But even that decision is governed by trust–do I trust that person enough to be a fair interpreter of information, even if I think he’s biased?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

How would that trust be determined, though? For me, it involves a few things (especially for people communicating in the public sphere):<\/p>\n

Order Hydrocodone Online https://castlehomecomfort.com/humidifiers/ (1)<\/strong> Are you willing to call bullshit on your own tribe? \u00a0 Order Clonazepam Online (2)<\/strong> Are you engaging in good faith and not letting political calculations or tribal loyalty dictate your argument? Buy Xanax Online Without Prescription (3)<\/strong> Are you open to new information that challenges your existing position on x, y, or z? Buy Alprazolam No Prescription (4)<\/strong> Do you have an ax to grind?<\/p>\n

Buy Tramadol Without Prescription This is my personal criteria that I have for sources that I consider turning to for interpretation of information that I don’t have the knowledge to properly understand and\/or assess. Making a determination based on any of the above involves some work. You have to be familiar with a source’s record, what he or she has said and\/or written on x, y, or z.<\/p>\n

Buy Online Soma Now, to come back to that BBC show and one of its subjects–climate change–let’s turn to one of the clips\u00a0that got a lot of press attention at the time. It was Nurse’s interview with James Delingpole, the bellicose<\/a> Telegraph blogger I recently mentioned here.<\/a><\/p>\n

At one point, Delingpole says this:<\/p>\n

It is not my job to sit down and read peer reviewed papers, because I simply haven’t got the time. I am an interpreter of interpretations…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You can watch the exchange here.<\/p>\n