If you start out with an opinion and look for evidence to support it, yeah, that is biased. But it doesn't mean it's not a useful contribution to the conversation. Certainly it's better than not looking for evidence!
In an argument, if you're trying to convince the other person to support your beliefs, you wouldn't use clearly biased sources like you did here. I have no argument with you specifically but just pointing it out for the future that people will dismiss any biased sources you give them, which is probably not what you want the outcome to be in an argumentative fashion.
Gotcha, so bias like this is good as long as you agree with it. I don't think we are going to have a real discussion about the issue I actually brought up, so better to end it here. I wish you a good weekend.
Edit: removed the word agree because that doesn't matter
The bias I'm suggesting is an appeal to authority, and you'll have to be more clear on how I'm displaying that, since I am neither suggesting I am an expert, nor am I showing off my long history of "being right" about other things.
Agreed. The article itself doesn't seem wildly biased from a cursory glance, and I'm not really qualified to comment on its scientific rigor, but it's worth being aware of potential sources of bias nonetheless.
Just a random point of feedback, but you sound more like the one carrying confirmation bias here. But really, throwing that phrase around in an internet debate is pretty meaningless rhetoric. It takes YEARS of working with someone before I feel like I understand that person's biases well enough to accuse them of such a thing.
Just because you can get it elsewhere doesn't mean that the source you're getting it from isn't biased one way or another.
reply