4 ms·

There is difference between journalist talking to such an expert and writing the article, than the expert writing himself.experise does not mean he will be unbi

There is difference between journalist talking to such an expert and writing the article, than the expert writing himself.experise does not mean he will be unbiased. You need a neutral perspective, same reason dev should be his own qa, or lawyer should not represent himself or a doctor not operate on family. While they can be objective and unbiased, it is right to question that, when the author has a vested interest in the matter as it easy to loose perspective.

fsloth 6y ago
Bias is not bad in sciences. It means the person is dedicated to his/her cause. For example, if you read through nobel price winners you find one very strong common factor. They were always emotionally involved in their work. Humans are emotional beings, not robots. If you want to have high performance, you want the performer to care deeply about his work. Biases should not be hidden though! I think that is the pathology people generally confuse with bias. Bias is a positive thing, hiding it is not. This does not contradict the above examples (lawyer, doctor, dev) but rather highlights there are different situations and no single approach to bias suffices. Besides, journalism is almost never unbiased. If you don't know the bias of the writer, it means the writer has a hidden agenda. Much better to flaunt the agenda, then.
- 7952 6y ago
  And our reaction is entirely coloured by bias and our own baseline understanding of the world. We expect higher quality argument from the side we are less comfortable with. And happily accept less proof on concepts that we are already familiar with. No one worries about bias when you are talking about pistgres.
collyw 6y ago
The Guardian is far from neutral. It's one of the most biased publications out there in my opinion.
- meloentje 6y ago
  Ah right. There's only two categories right? Publications you agree with: unbiased. Publications you don't agree with: biased.
bloat 6y ago
Note that the article is in the Opinion section of the newspaper. You shouldn't expect unbiased reporting here, it's the designated space for editorializing and well... opinions.

fsloth 6y ago

Bias is not bad in sciences. It means the person is dedicated to his/her cause. For example, if you read through nobel price winners you find one very strong common factor. They were always emotionally involved in their work. Humans are emotional beings, not robots. If you want to have high performance, you want the performer to care deeply about his work. Biases should not be hidden though! I think that is the pathology people generally confuse with bias. Bias is a positive thing, hiding it is not. This does not contradict the above examples (lawyer, doctor, dev) but rather highlights there are different situations and no single approach to bias suffices. Besides, journalism is almost never unbiased. If you don't know the bias of the writer, it means the writer has a hidden agenda. Much better to flaunt the agenda, then.

7952 6y ago
And our reaction is entirely coloured by bias and our own baseline understanding of the world. We expect higher quality argument from the side we are less comfortable with. And happily accept less proof on concepts that we are already familiar with. No one worries about bias when you are talking about pistgres.

collyw 6y ago

The Guardian is far from neutral. It's one of the most biased publications out there in my opinion.

meloentje 6y ago
Ah right. There's only two categories right? Publications you agree with: unbiased. Publications you don't agree with: biased.

bloat 6y ago

Note that the article is in the Opinion section of the newspaper. You shouldn't expect unbiased reporting here, it's the designated space for editorializing and well... opinions.