It's more like Bayesian inference. In confirmation bias, you specifically seek out information that confirms your views and avoid/ignore information that might

It's more like Bayesian inference. In confirmation bias, you specifically seek out information that confirms your views and avoid/ignore information that might contradict it. The criteria you use to filter information is "do I want to believe this?" To use the example from the article, you might choose to only read articles from homeopathy sites, or to relentlessly nitpick articles from critics. In a Bayesian framework, you compare the strength of information that contradicts your views to the strength of the information that supports those views. The criteria you use to filter information is "is this good evidence in relation to the rest of the body of evidence?" In the homeopathy example, you'd study science and then note that there's a lot of strong evidence against it, and therefore require that evidence given to support it be stronger than "5% of placebos would give this same effect". It's the difference between ignoring contrary evidence and giving it the proper weighting.