VonDondu wrote:Now you're oversimplifying. Allow me to rephrase the "argument". If a person likes Michael Jackson, then he or she won't believe the allegations of child abuse. If a person doesn't like Michael Jackson, then he or she will believe the allegations of child abuse. It's not "meaningless"; it's simply prejudice.
My reasoning for assessing it as nonsense goes like this: A prejudice is per definition an unfounded overgeneralisation of something. Disliking a person is a personal opinion. Disliking a person, and whether this person has committed a crime or not, are two disparate events that have nothing to do with each other. So, in effect, the argument "I dislike Jackson, and my dislike and my prejudices about what he represents makes it more likely that he has committed child abuse" is non-sensical as a argument. My oversimplication was meant to demonstrate that the idea "He is guilty of child abuse (something I don't like) because I dislike him" is equally invalid as an argument as "I don't like him because I don't like him", ie the idea that your personal dislike of somebody for some reasons, makes it reasonable to assume that the person has committed acts you don't like for other reasons.
Now, people of course differ a lot in what they find meaningful or valid, but this is a good example of lines of thinking that I find totally meaningless. That is not to say it is meaningless to the person who holds these prejudices and makes these unfounded assumptions, but I find unfounded subjective opinions based on prejudice and not facts, meaningless indeed as arguments.
I would never call someone a "Eurotrash commie", but I think that term is very funny.
Heh, I am convinced you wouldn't, but I have been called that an American message board I posted a little at some years ago, and I saw many other European being labelled as "Eurotrash" meaning our opinions are not valid because we are Europeans, and "commies" meaning everything that was not strictly neo-con or ultra-libertarian. "Eurotrash" because a label for everything that questioned the current US regime, the US brand of fundamentalist christianity or the general superiority of US culture. I should also mention that other frequent expressions at this message board was "un-american" and "your're with the terrorists".
The thing is, when you have a belief you want to prove and you find arguments that support your belief, you have a tendency to believe that those arguments are the reason why you have that belief. But your belief is not the product of your reasoning; your reasoning is the product of your belief.
In psychology, this phenomenon is called
confirmation bias at since this is a general problem with human thinking, you cannot escape this problem as a sole individual - you have to use cooperation with others in order to minimise the influence of confirmation bias. I am not so familiar with the US court system, but in science, we the of use objective measurement methods (ie instruments rather than human personal experience) and double-blind peer-review of data interpretations in order to minimise it.
Giles]It's a very good point wrote:
It is part of how human cognition works to form ideas, or images of things as a preconception. The critical thing is not to avoid forming ideas, but to avoid to get emotially, personally, finasically or otherwise attached to your ideas. One strategy to avoid becoming inflexible and biased, is to use the same rules as when you form scientific hypothesis. When you have identified an idea you have, go through the available information and your own reasoning and 1. decide what evidence will falsify your current opinions and 2. make predictions of based on your current thinking. Like "If the mycobacteria tuberculosis cause TB, the bacteria should be found in all people who have TB and it should not be found in people who do not have TB. If the bacteria is found in people who do not have TB or, if people have TB without having the bacteria, my belief must be incorrect".
