Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
On Bias
Today we saw evidence of the DOD accusing Rajiv Chandrasekaran of a "liberal bias", by linking him with TPM. Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, characterizes Josh Marshall as a "Bush-bashing uber-liberal." I'm with Dick Cheney on this one: so?
Bias differs from corruption. Bias is healthy, and corruption is sick. Please indulge me in an analogy.
A scientist hypothesizes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He performs an experiment, and confirms his hypothesis. Mark Kimmitt would accuse this scientist of a "Heliocentric Bias."
Another scientist also hypothesizes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He too performs an experiment, and it disproves his hypothesis (the experiment was flawed, what can I say). He falsifies his research, and declares, in spite of the facts, that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This scientist is corrupt.
Both scientists reached the same conclusions, and both had the same bias. The difference between them is clear: the first one was clean, and the second was corrupt.
The moral of this parable? The next time you find yourself accusing someone of bias, first look to see if you can prove he is corrupt (evidence would help here, insofar as you are proving something). Otherwise, that someone might just be doing his job.
Comments (20)
Brilliant distinction, lbp.
May 11, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a Pro-Distinction Bias.
May 11, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a Pro-Distinction-Bias Bias.
May 11, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a Pro-Distinction-Bias-Bias Bias. Careful, we might cross over.
May 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice one...
May 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that the TPM staff framed that beautiful little email and have it hanging at TPM headquarters.
May 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice! Also, the other thing I look for with bias is whether the particular scientist is a open about (and aware of) their biases. Because the only thing scarier than someone hiding their bias is someone who doesn't even know that they are biased. (The first is a type of corruption, but the second is delusion. Both are relevant.)
May 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real science always trumps fakery, eventually.
Reality is biased against falsity.
May 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace triumphs over war as spirit subsumes science.
May 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent, lbp.
May 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
An unfortunately tendency in today's society to frame everything in political terms -- giving us a relativism that most people eventually find unsatisfying.
A scientist who falsifies data is, by definition, no longer a scientist.
My suggestion: come up with a better analogy.
And if you want to delve into the issues of doing experiments, I suggest the following link as a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_and_cargo_cult_science
May 11, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it isn't the best analogy. I, in fact, thought of putting together three different analogies (three is always a good number), but I thought this would be a waste of everyone's time (I realize you have a passion for science, but cut me a little slack).
But is a journalist who doesn't check his sources still a journalist? (I would also answer no). Is a journalist who reports spin instead of fact still a journalist? (I would also answer no). Is a television news station that allows military propaganda be reported as fact, still a "news" show? (I would also answer no). So, I think my point was made, and this is just a semantic difference. I could have said "one scientist falsifies his research (and later it was discovered, he was disgraced, and no one called him a scientist anymore-- also, he stopped being a scientist the very moment he published his falsified research, instead, let's call him Bob, and imagine sort of "carrying" the Bob, like you would mentally carry the two in arithmetic, between the sentence where I say "scientist" and the sentence where I say "falsifies research")... but that might have taken up too much space.
By the way, I'm a quarter of the way through Overshoot right now-- I can't wait to pick your brain once I'm done!
May 11, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've missed the point. In continuing to apply vague and fuzzy analogies, you only help confuse the fundamental issues -- and don't do justice to the point I presume you are trying to make. This is akin to people who argue "isn't the theory of evolution, only a theory"?
Your analogy is confusing because the topic of bias in science (which does exist and is legitimate) does not intersect the topic of falsifying data.
May 11, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly the word "bias," when used in a scientific context to level a serious charge, is not used in the same sense as I used it above. So, in that sense, I can see why it might be confusing.
Now, let me give another analogy, like you requested.
There are two record reviewers, and they are reviewing the same record. The first loves early D.C. Punk, and over the years she has seen many of the bands play. The record she's reviewing is a new release by an old D.C. Punk band. She wants it to be good! She listens to it several times, thinks it's great, and writes a glowing review.
The second reviewer gets a shitload of payola from the band's record company. She also wants the record to be good! She listens to it several times, thinks it's great, and also writes a glowing review (without disclosing the payola).
Now, I have seen this happen before where the first reviewer would get a lot of angry letters to the editor, accusing her of bias. However, she's a good reviewer, and happened to be very knowledgable about a specific subgenre of music, and the record was, in fact, good. The second reviewer, I have seen this a lot too, gets zero hate mail, and a few years later it turns out she was corrupt, but by that time she's walked through the revolving door into some A&R position at a major label.
Was the first reviewer biased? Hell yes! But in this case, was it a bad thing? Hell no! In fact, both reviewers were biased. They both wanted the record to be good. The first wanted it to be good, because she's passionate about that style of music. The second wanted it to be good, so it would take some of the edge off of lying, being bribed, etc... if it were good it would cover her tracks a bit more. But she wasn't just biased-- she was corrupt.
Now, I can also tell you that people who are very passionate about music might seriously take issue with my use of the word "bias" here, just like you did with science. They might say that she has no right reviewing records in the first place if she can't be objective, and come to them with a completely open mind. People take this very seriously. You might argue that science is different, and this is a form of relativism on my part, to equate a subjective art with something as objective as science. However, you would at least grant that corruption and bias in my three analogies (journalism, music, science) are just that-- analogies. They are imperfect, but illustrate this point: Corruption = really bad, really clear cut; Bias = not as horrible, very subtle.
May 12, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You insist on missing the point. Even worse, you want to justify your poor analogy -- and dismiss my objection -- because of my 'passion' for science. It may be a clever debate tactic, but it's a poor way of elucidating the truth.
The fact is your analogy is poor -- on an absolute scale. You can continue dig in and to be dismissive of my comment by ascribing it to subjective emotional motives on my end, but, in truth, it does mean you have demonstrated little knowledge of scientific thought, process, and methods.
May 12, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you also think Aesop demonstrated poor knowledge of zoology in his fables?
May 12, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aesop's fables have withstood the literary test for 2600 years. I know Aesop's fables. I've ready Aesop's fables.
Sir, your posts on no Aesop's fables.
May 12, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post is honorable.
May 11, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's progressive movement has a liberal bias toward honest government, universal health care, energy independence, fighting global warming, and exposing war crimes. The current administration has a bias toward preventing these things.
It's like having a bias toward healthy food and clean water but the junk food dealers and the polluting chemical companies have managed to paint you as evil for wanting these things.
At some point it should become very clear that it's not about biases or opinions. It's about a corrupt ruling class standing in the way of the common good.
May 11, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right Craig! That was really close to the point I wanted to imply here.
Here's my real point: talking about bias is a waste of time when there is large evidence of corruption. Even on this site, how many posts, comments, and articles did we see about a Pro-Obama or Pro-Clinton Bias; an Anti-Obama, or an Anti-Clinton Bias. Let's say a story hit the front page on Website X, it was unfavorable to Obama, and then someone believes it was unfair... and they start to see a pattern of unfairness toward Obama.. and finally a story they feel is very unfair to Obama hits, and they've just had it... and they write to the editor, or write a blog, and say "Website X Has An Anti-Obama Bias!!!" Here's my answer to that: 1) what a waste of time, 2) this is unknowable, 3) so!?
It is possible to measure something as subtle as bias... let's say here, in an individual news organization. You conduct surveys of staff and readers, take polls of the staff, create a database, design some double-blind testing, etc. But this is small potatoes! There is real corruption going on in our media. The NYT Pentagon propaganda story is one such story... loads of corruption. The networks don't have a "Pro-Pentagon Bias." They are corrupt! Another type of corruption is conflict of interest... For example, people like Begala or Carville or Stephanopoulos doing network news analysis, when they have worked for Clinton. There are thousands of examples of such political corruption in our media-- so why focus on something as subtle as bias?!
May 11, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment