3 ms·

Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible. This is a core principle central to human advancement. It is central to

Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible. This is a core principle central to human advancement. It is central to the scientific method, and liberal societies generally. Fringe positions can be revolutionary and important. More often, they are reactionary and not well thought out. There is nothing wrong with advocating for a fringe position. But you better have the intellectual goods, and not just win arguments by default by suppressing dissent. The latter is activism. Controversy should mean giving opposing view points a fair shake and judging between them by the strength of the data and arguments supporting them. Not by university administrations unilaterally deciding and declaring dissent as "unsafe" for the students who don't want to be exposed to anything that challenges their world views.

shuntress 3y ago
The issue here is Overton Window.
gnramires 3y ago
I think it's important to understand what bias is. Bias is not having an opinion. Bias is when several particulars to you influence your opinions in ways that don't reflect certain values, like the common good, truth, accurate representations of the matter, or similar values. I also think conveying certainty when there is none is a form of bias (when advocating for change, for example), as is equally advocating for absolute ignorance where there are some principles we can have confidence is. That's different from neutrality, which for me is avoiding expressing opinions at all. I think neutrality is valuable if otherwise dialogue would be misinterpreted or cause conflict. Conversations need a well moderated (safe, welcoming, with vigilance for good-faith discussion) and freely exchanging environment to be productive, otherwise I think neutrality is the best option. Neutrality is also a good option when there are different cultural notions/opinions that can coexist without coming into conflict (this is a case where promoting uniformity and uniform agreement can be harmful, I believe! -- like, we don't need to agree that basketball is superior to football or something like that).
shadowgovt 3y ago
> Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible That's not the way I'd phrase it. Bias should aim towards truth. Unbiased signal treats Young Earth Creationism and the geologically- and astronomically-rooted theory of long time as equivalently valid viewpoints. The bias should be, for hard sciences, on the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  I don't know man? Maybe for math and science you can do this? But history, is bias and indoctrination. What Germans learned about WWII during the 70's and 80's was significantly different than what, say, Russians or Americans learned about WWII during the 70's and 80's. And what Russians and Americans learned about WWII was slightly different from each other as well. Even within a nation. In Florida slavery will be taught more as a precursor to legal immigration, in Minnesota it will be taught as an evil and an affront to humanity. History all depends on what you want to indoctrinate the kids with. Which, in turn, all depends almost totally on your bias.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  You do not need bias to win the case for the Earth being >6,000 years old. An unbiased presentation of the empirical data at our disposal is sufficient to make that case very strongly. > The bias should be, for hard sciences, on the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning. That is the opposite of bias.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    There's an old saw in the AI community about Minsky talking to a student training a tic-tac-toe neural net. When he asked why the net was randomly-wired initially, the student responded that they didn't want it to have preconceptions of how to play. Minksy responded that it still had preconceptions; we just didn't know what they were. Eliminating bias is a mu-goal. An unbiased electrical pin isn't a perfect signal; it's a floating input, passing along whatever radio flux slips through it. Our goal is always to seek out the right biases.
silverquiet 3y ago
As others have said, we all have biases, but it seems that American Conservatives are tripped up by them more in an academic context than other groups. It is not controversial in academia that the Earth is on the order of billions of years old, animals change over time via evolution, or that carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. And yet within the American political context, they are controversial.
- bilbo0s 3y ago
  To be fair, the way I read what Yale is trying to do, we would get rid of the deluge of nonsensical garbage that we've been subjected to for the past few decades. Peer review would be reinstituted in its original form. The bar gets wayyy higher. And your activities become activism when you don't have the independent replications to back up your assertions. This could be a Godsend with respect to stopping the assault on science. Conservatives would be very unlikely, for instance, to get their "studies" independently replicated by non conservatives.
- jimbokun 3y ago
  That you cannot name any similar biases by people on the left...clearly shows where your biases lie.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    Indeed, I am not aware of instances where the left disagrees so ardently with firmly established science. There are certainly some disputes where the science gets a bit more squishy, but frankly there's a reason that I was driven away from Christianity by right-wing ideologues who also denied science.
    - gnicholas 3y ago
      > I am not aware of instances where the left disagrees so ardently with firmly established science Let me introduce you to the "lab leak hypothesis", which was decried as racist for years by prominent Democrats and scientists. It lost this reputation around the time that another prominent liberal (Jon Stewart) saw fit to mock its detractors on national TV a while back. This was not firmly established science at first, but those on the left made impossible to even discuss in mixed company, which shut down the conversation and any rational investigations. For other examples, check out Vinay Prasad's writings. He's a Bernie supporter, a UCSF professor, and the rare progressive who is willing to call out hypocrisy and graft even when it appears on the left.
wolverine876 3y ago
> But you better have the intellectual goods, and not just win arguments by default by suppressing dissent. / The latter is activism. Isn't that what conservatives are actively, openly doing everywhere - suppressing dissent in libraries, universities, business (ESG, DEI, etc.), society, courts, political protest, media - suppressing liberal dissent?
- throwawa14223 3y ago
  I'm having a hard time parsing this. Is your claim that ESG, DEI, etc are part of conservatives suppressing liberal dissent?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I mean that the suppression of those things is part of conservatives suppressing liberal dissent. I see the problem; I'll fix it. Thanks!
- jimbokun 3y ago
  Conservatives have very little control or influence over libraries, universities, business HR programs, or the broad media (excluding some notable explicitly conservative outlets). But yes, the ham fisted attempts by conservative politicians to combat purported progressive censorship...with conservative censorship...is equally bad.
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Republican legislatures have been banning books from libraries. Libraries are government institutions. State universities are also government institutions. Florida has been forcing state schools, stifling the speech of the faculty on exactly what this article is about.
    - EEMac 3y ago
      Has Florida been banning books from universities?! "Schools" usually means K-12 schools.
norir 3y ago
This is one of those issues where I find myself both disagreeing and sympathizing with everyone involved. We desperately need collective truth, reconciliation and forgiveness on a societal level. Without that, these issues are just going to get worse and worse as all sides continue yelling at each other and we all retreat inside of our protective bubbles. The supposed woke mind virus has equally infected the left and the right, which increasingly mirror each other in their demonization of the other side and unwillingness to engage in good faith. No one is immune, not least those who claim to be above the fray.

shuntress 3y ago

The issue here is Overton Window.

gnramires 3y ago

I think it's important to understand what bias is. Bias is not having an opinion. Bias is when several particulars to you influence your opinions in ways that don't reflect certain values, like the common good, truth, accurate representations of the matter, or similar values. I also think conveying certainty when there is none is a form of bias (when advocating for change, for example), as is equally advocating for absolute ignorance where there are some principles we can have confidence is. That's different from neutrality, which for me is avoiding expressing opinions at all. I think neutrality is valuable if otherwise dialogue would be misinterpreted or cause conflict. Conversations need a well moderated (safe, welcoming, with vigilance for good-faith discussion) and freely exchanging environment to be productive, otherwise I think neutrality is the best option. Neutrality is also a good option when there are different cultural notions/opinions that can coexist without coming into conflict (this is a case where promoting uniformity and uniform agreement can be harmful, I believe! -- like, we don't need to agree that basketball is superior to football or something like that).

shadowgovt 3y ago

> Bias may be unavoidable, but it should be rooted out to the greatest extent possible That's not the way I'd phrase it. Bias should aim towards truth. Unbiased signal treats Young Earth Creationism and the geologically- and astronomically-rooted theory of long time as equivalently valid viewpoints. The bias should be, for hard sciences, on the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning.

bilbo0s 3y ago
I don't know man? Maybe for math and science you can do this? But history, is bias and indoctrination. What Germans learned about WWII during the 70's and 80's was significantly different than what, say, Russians or Americans learned about WWII during the 70's and 80's. And what Russians and Americans learned about WWII was slightly different from each other as well. Even within a nation. In Florida slavery will be taught more as a precursor to legal immigration, in Minnesota it will be taught as an evil and an affront to humanity. History all depends on what you want to indoctrinate the kids with. Which, in turn, all depends almost totally on your bias.
jimbokun 3y ago
You do not need bias to win the case for the Earth being >6,000 years old. An unbiased presentation of the empirical data at our disposal is sufficient to make that case very strongly. > The bias should be, for hard sciences, on the scientific method and evidence-based reasoning. That is the opposite of bias.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  There's an old saw in the AI community about Minsky talking to a student training a tic-tac-toe neural net. When he asked why the net was randomly-wired initially, the student responded that they didn't want it to have preconceptions of how to play. Minksy responded that it still had preconceptions; we just didn't know what they were. Eliminating bias is a mu-goal. An unbiased electrical pin isn't a perfect signal; it's a floating input, passing along whatever radio flux slips through it. Our goal is always to seek out the right biases.

silverquiet 3y ago

As others have said, we all have biases, but it seems that American Conservatives are tripped up by them more in an academic context than other groups. It is not controversial in academia that the Earth is on the order of billions of years old, animals change over time via evolution, or that carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. And yet within the American political context, they are controversial.

bilbo0s 3y ago
To be fair, the way I read what Yale is trying to do, we would get rid of the deluge of nonsensical garbage that we've been subjected to for the past few decades. Peer review would be reinstituted in its original form. The bar gets wayyy higher. And your activities become activism when you don't have the independent replications to back up your assertions. This could be a Godsend with respect to stopping the assault on science. Conservatives would be very unlikely, for instance, to get their "studies" independently replicated by non conservatives.
jimbokun 3y ago
That you cannot name any similar biases by people on the left...clearly shows where your biases lie.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  Indeed, I am not aware of instances where the left disagrees so ardently with firmly established science. There are certainly some disputes where the science gets a bit more squishy, but frankly there's a reason that I was driven away from Christianity by right-wing ideologues who also denied science.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    > I am not aware of instances where the left disagrees so ardently with firmly established science Let me introduce you to the "lab leak hypothesis", which was decried as racist for years by prominent Democrats and scientists. It lost this reputation around the time that another prominent liberal (Jon Stewart) saw fit to mock its detractors on national TV a while back. This was not firmly established science at first, but those on the left made impossible to even discuss in mixed company, which shut down the conversation and any rational investigations. For other examples, check out Vinay Prasad's writings. He's a Bernie supporter, a UCSF professor, and the rare progressive who is willing to call out hypocrisy and graft even when it appears on the left.

wolverine876 3y ago

> But you better have the intellectual goods, and not just win arguments by default by suppressing dissent. / The latter is activism. Isn't that what conservatives are actively, openly doing everywhere - suppressing dissent in libraries, universities, business (ESG, DEI, etc.), society, courts, political protest, media - suppressing liberal dissent?

throwawa14223 3y ago
I'm having a hard time parsing this. Is your claim that ESG, DEI, etc are part of conservatives suppressing liberal dissent?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  I mean that the suppression of those things is part of conservatives suppressing liberal dissent. I see the problem; I'll fix it. Thanks!
jimbokun 3y ago
Conservatives have very little control or influence over libraries, universities, business HR programs, or the broad media (excluding some notable explicitly conservative outlets). But yes, the ham fisted attempts by conservative politicians to combat purported progressive censorship...with conservative censorship...is equally bad.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Republican legislatures have been banning books from libraries. Libraries are government institutions. State universities are also government institutions. Florida has been forcing state schools, stifling the speech of the faculty on exactly what this article is about.
  - EEMac 3y ago
    Has Florida been banning books from universities?! "Schools" usually means K-12 schools.

norir 3y ago

This is one of those issues where I find myself both disagreeing and sympathizing with everyone involved. We desperately need collective truth, reconciliation and forgiveness on a societal level. Without that, these issues are just going to get worse and worse as all sides continue yelling at each other and we all retreat inside of our protective bubbles. The supposed woke mind virus has equally infected the left and the right, which increasingly mirror each other in their demonization of the other side and unwillingness to engage in good faith. No one is immune, not least those who claim to be above the fray.