Simon (check out his blog) , a classmate in my PIDP 3250 Course, had this to say about how a person's bias can affect their critical thinking abilities:
After reading about this I couldn't help but think about the issue of climate change. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system. Determining if it is warming or not, and if it is warming if human produced green house gasses are responsible.
As a person who likes to look at himself as a critical thinker I am faced with a challenge of how to evaluate if climate change is happening and if it is being caused by humans. One route to take would be to evaluate the numerous scientific studies on the subject. However I am only one person and I don't have the critical thinking skills specific to that discipline to evaluate the research that is being conducted by thousands of scientists around the globe. So that route is effectively out.
The other route, and the route I have chosen, is to ask myself the question how should one go about answering the question of human induced climate change. And the answer to me is to look at the data, although given the above, I am not sufficiently resourced to do this. So then I back out a layer and look at the scientists who are studying the issue and hear what they have to say. When I do I realize that their is a 97% consensus on human caused global climate warming. To me the answer is clear and obvious. Humans are causing the earth to warm up.
To me watching how individuals respond to this scientific consensus is very interesting and with regards to Simon's points on clarity, accuracy, and precision, and depth: I am often amazed at people reading a newspaper article that contains one example that contradicts the scientific consensus and then leverages this example to show that climate change is not happening while not even once mentioning the scientific consensus and the vigorous debate required to achieve it. After reading this article that conforms to and further reinforces the individual's confirmation bias (see video below) they then use this in conversations with their friends as evidence that climate change isn't happening.
I am not saying that I am without confirmation bias, perhaps it is just easier for me to see it in others than to see it in myself.
Dan
- Clarity: Using examples that prove a point and ignoring examples that counter it
- Accuracy: Not checking the facts that support a point
- Precision: Ignoring details that may contradict a point
- Relevance: Using information that does not directly support a point
- Depth: Skimming the surface of the point, whether researching further into information that may contradict it
- Breadth: Ignoring other points of view
- Logic: Using steps to argue the point that don't make sense
- Fairness: Having an emotional investment in the point
After reading about this I couldn't help but think about the issue of climate change. The Earth's climate is an incredibly complex system. Determining if it is warming or not, and if it is warming if human produced green house gasses are responsible.
As a person who likes to look at himself as a critical thinker I am faced with a challenge of how to evaluate if climate change is happening and if it is being caused by humans. One route to take would be to evaluate the numerous scientific studies on the subject. However I am only one person and I don't have the critical thinking skills specific to that discipline to evaluate the research that is being conducted by thousands of scientists around the globe. So that route is effectively out.
The other route, and the route I have chosen, is to ask myself the question how should one go about answering the question of human induced climate change. And the answer to me is to look at the data, although given the above, I am not sufficiently resourced to do this. So then I back out a layer and look at the scientists who are studying the issue and hear what they have to say. When I do I realize that their is a 97% consensus on human caused global climate warming. To me the answer is clear and obvious. Humans are causing the earth to warm up.
To me watching how individuals respond to this scientific consensus is very interesting and with regards to Simon's points on clarity, accuracy, and precision, and depth: I am often amazed at people reading a newspaper article that contains one example that contradicts the scientific consensus and then leverages this example to show that climate change is not happening while not even once mentioning the scientific consensus and the vigorous debate required to achieve it. After reading this article that conforms to and further reinforces the individual's confirmation bias (see video below) they then use this in conversations with their friends as evidence that climate change isn't happening.
I am not saying that I am without confirmation bias, perhaps it is just easier for me to see it in others than to see it in myself.
Dan