When Ideology clouds logic: influences of political, cultural or other bias in critical thinking PART ONE
When Ideology clouds logic: influences of political, cultural or other bias in critical thinking
PART ONE - GUILT
I have been putting this off for a while now because I wanted the furor of the election to pass. This was predominantly because the political upheaval was causing "normal, logical critical thinkers" in my life to stick their head up their arse and lose all their ability to think.
I can understand that people use politics, culture or belief systems for self-identification but it doesn't justify the suspension of logic, critical thinking or literacy. Evidence is evidence. A piece of data is a piece of data. there isn't any other way around that one.
This all started over a politically motivated social justice warrior [SJW] argument. I won't get into the meat of the argument until next post but I will be using some of the arguments as evidence in this post. I am not using names, so don't ask. If one wants to self-identify and let the world know who they are, I can't stop them. I can, however, point out some basic fundamental facts.
Lets start with the argument of what constitutes "guilt" in the US.
Most people, especially of late, consider it proof of guilt if a person or organization is "under investigation". This is not the case. Until there is adjudication and a court judgement of guilt by law, judge and or jury, then there is, per the constitution, the assumption of innocence. So why does this suddenly change when someone you don't like is being investigated?
Being under investigation doesn't mean, imply or prove guilt or complicity in an illegal act. it simply means, in the legal term, that [paraphrased by me] "information and facts are being sought to exclude or include suspects for a potential trial". that is it. period.
It can be explained like this:
If you see a crime happen, and you produce witness testimony to the police, you will be under investigation for said testimony. This means they must establish your location, time, authenticity, credibility and background and determine your liability or credibility to the case. It doesn't mean you are guilty of anything, since you are only a witness, but it does mean you're investigated. The opposition in court will also investigate you to attempt to undermine your testimony for the defense of the client. This doesn't mean you're guilty of anything, it simply means you're under investigation for the opposition of their client.
Another example: Security Clearances (for the military, government or similar organizations)
You will be investigated to establish your credibility and or level of clearance. It doesn't mean there is proof of a crime, nor does it imply there is justification to litigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate or in any other way infer guilt. It simply means that someone is looking for information.
Here are more relevant examples that everyone can relate to because everyone, and I mean everyone, will be investigated in their lifetime: credit, mortgages, jobs, drivers license, passport, taxes, etc (need I really continue?)
why am I bringing this up? Because of the following comment:
lets examine the evidence from a logical, methodical perspective.
there is an organization (we'll call them [x]) that is under investigation for "ongoing racial and sexual harassment, demonstrated by the investigation".
Now, in most cases one typically considers that a news event is factual representation of data. In this case I would simply argue the point of "Saturday Night Fever", based upon a NYT news article that was completely fabricated.
So we know that I don't accept news or any other article as evidence of proof of anything other than the opinion of the author about the subject (see previous blog posts). One thing it can do, however, is provide circumstantial evidence, like intent, or circumstantial evidence to establish probability of an event for the sake of investigation for evidence. Notice I didn't say probability of guilt?
We know that media promotes news based upon shock value. The more shock value the more likely it is to make the headlines. So why am I ignoring the "evidence" in an article about "ongoing racial and sexual harassment, demonstrated by the investigation"?
It's actually very simple: it's not proof of guilt.
what constitutes proof of guilt?
Adjudication.
Adjudication is:
The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adjudication
In order to have a judgement of guilt, one must stand before a court, present evidence, determine guilt or innocence and be judged formally with a violation. this is per the rule of law, standards of evidence and by our constitutional right of innocence unless proven otherwise. this is why guilt must have adjudication, or a "judicial decision or sentence" per Websters 2nd definition.
Why would anyone say I am ignoring evidence when I can plainly see that [x] is being investigated for criminal acts? It boils down to their interpretation of the articles.
They interpreted the article as:
because [x] is being investigated, this means there is evidence for adjudication, thus [x] is and must be guilty of a crime.
I interpreted the article as:
[x] is being investigated to see if there is justification to establish a trial or exonerate them from accusation.
Why?
Why do I interpret it so differently than this person who claims education and has demonstrated a logical, methodical mind capable of comprehending complex scientific topics like Quantum Mechanics? ... because of the following from Black's Law
What is INVESTIGATION?
a term that means to examine and to look at carefully, discover the facts or make a legal inquiry.
http://thelawdictionary.org/investigation/
Where, in all of the definitions of "investigation" is there any intimation of legal guilt? Or of guilt at all?
If anyone can find proof or evidence that establishes a link demonstrating how "being investigated" means "proof of guilt", feel free to let me know, because then I will simply call your local PD and have you "investigated" for any random thing that pops in my head, which will, instantly, per your own definitions and logic, make you guilty of whatever crime I decide to accuse you of when I share it with the police, likely with multiple original IP addresses and e-mail accounts, giving obvious credibility.
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why being under "investigation" is not the same thing as being "guilty". Especially because of the above paragraph... because everyone will, eventually, be under investigation for some reason, be it to establish credit, a mortgage, buy a car, get a drivers license, bet hired for a job or any of the myriad other reasons that people are "investigated" in real life.
What this boils down to is the bias failure in a persons brain. People don't consider the implications of instant judgement about a title, book cover, article, or any news piece without investigating the facts. This is typical for most people and this is why we, as a species, have things like "brand association" and "trusted news sources" for information.
Is that a bad thing? yes and no.
During this whole argument with an individual whom I did (and still do) hold a great deal of respect for, I tried to point out the logical fallacy of prejudice being displayed by said poster because of the misinterpreted argument of guilt and investigation. I was not treated as being logical. I was treated as being emotional, writing emotionally loaded arguments, and ignoring evidence.
I never ignore evidence.
period.
It goes against everything I believe in. It directly violates my code of conduct that I live by.
I can establish that evidence isn't relevant and that it is not applicable. I can state that evidence is of lesser or greater impact depending on a source or the type of evidence... but I never ignore it.
Ever.
What was the reply of my insistence on clarity for this point?
...and this was not believed to be a threat by said poster! They actually said the following when I asked them why they would threaten me and an entire site:
So, the poster, normally rational, has judged me a "denier" and incapable of seeing logic, then says that, because of a difference of opinion and the refusal to accept his specific interpretation of the "investigation", that he will judge an entire site as being like me.
This is why I usually don't get involved with political or subjective arguments. This poster, whom I call friend, has removed me (and an entire site) from their life simply because I didn't blindly accept their misinterpretations as factual ... and because when I presented a fact filled non-subjective argument that directly contradicted their claims, in their mind this then meant that I was a crank or crackpot delusional denier of evidence.
All because I don't believe exactly like they do.
Why am I bringing this up?
There is a trend among the self righteous SJW's: if you don't believe like I do, then you're scum, wrong, and you should be punished as much as possible.
YES - that is the message that they are promoting to the world, and giving to children: think like me or be wrong and punished or ostracized.
... to find out how this all got started, look at part two
PART ONE - GUILT
I have been putting this off for a while now because I wanted the furor of the election to pass. This was predominantly because the political upheaval was causing "normal, logical critical thinkers" in my life to stick their head up their arse and lose all their ability to think.
I can understand that people use politics, culture or belief systems for self-identification but it doesn't justify the suspension of logic, critical thinking or literacy. Evidence is evidence. A piece of data is a piece of data. there isn't any other way around that one.
This all started over a politically motivated social justice warrior [SJW] argument. I won't get into the meat of the argument until next post but I will be using some of the arguments as evidence in this post. I am not using names, so don't ask. If one wants to self-identify and let the world know who they are, I can't stop them. I can, however, point out some basic fundamental facts.
Lets start with the argument of what constitutes "guilt" in the US.
Most people, especially of late, consider it proof of guilt if a person or organization is "under investigation". This is not the case. Until there is adjudication and a court judgement of guilt by law, judge and or jury, then there is, per the constitution, the assumption of innocence. So why does this suddenly change when someone you don't like is being investigated?
Being under investigation doesn't mean, imply or prove guilt or complicity in an illegal act. it simply means, in the legal term, that [paraphrased by me] "information and facts are being sought to exclude or include suspects for a potential trial". that is it. period.
It can be explained like this:
If you see a crime happen, and you produce witness testimony to the police, you will be under investigation for said testimony. This means they must establish your location, time, authenticity, credibility and background and determine your liability or credibility to the case. It doesn't mean you are guilty of anything, since you are only a witness, but it does mean you're investigated. The opposition in court will also investigate you to attempt to undermine your testimony for the defense of the client. This doesn't mean you're guilty of anything, it simply means you're under investigation for the opposition of their client.
Another example: Security Clearances (for the military, government or similar organizations)
You will be investigated to establish your credibility and or level of clearance. It doesn't mean there is proof of a crime, nor does it imply there is justification to litigate, charge, prosecute, adjudicate or in any other way infer guilt. It simply means that someone is looking for information.
Here are more relevant examples that everyone can relate to because everyone, and I mean everyone, will be investigated in their lifetime: credit, mortgages, jobs, drivers license, passport, taxes, etc (need I really continue?)
why am I bringing this up? Because of the following comment:
"this is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and they have evidence that causes that investigation, and these articles lay out probable cause.
I am surprised that you deny an investigation in a manner that ignores evidence. You are better than this."
lets examine the evidence from a logical, methodical perspective.
there is an organization (we'll call them [x]) that is under investigation for "ongoing racial and sexual harassment, demonstrated by the investigation".
Now, in most cases one typically considers that a news event is factual representation of data. In this case I would simply argue the point of "Saturday Night Fever", based upon a NYT news article that was completely fabricated.
So we know that I don't accept news or any other article as evidence of proof of anything other than the opinion of the author about the subject (see previous blog posts). One thing it can do, however, is provide circumstantial evidence, like intent, or circumstantial evidence to establish probability of an event for the sake of investigation for evidence. Notice I didn't say probability of guilt?
We know that media promotes news based upon shock value. The more shock value the more likely it is to make the headlines. So why am I ignoring the "evidence" in an article about "ongoing racial and sexual harassment, demonstrated by the investigation"?
It's actually very simple: it's not proof of guilt.
what constitutes proof of guilt?
Adjudication.
Adjudication is:
The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adjudication
In order to have a judgement of guilt, one must stand before a court, present evidence, determine guilt or innocence and be judged formally with a violation. this is per the rule of law, standards of evidence and by our constitutional right of innocence unless proven otherwise. this is why guilt must have adjudication, or a "judicial decision or sentence" per Websters 2nd definition.
Why would anyone say I am ignoring evidence when I can plainly see that [x] is being investigated for criminal acts? It boils down to their interpretation of the articles.
They interpreted the article as:
because [x] is being investigated, this means there is evidence for adjudication, thus [x] is and must be guilty of a crime.
I interpreted the article as:
[x] is being investigated to see if there is justification to establish a trial or exonerate them from accusation.
Why?
Why do I interpret it so differently than this person who claims education and has demonstrated a logical, methodical mind capable of comprehending complex scientific topics like Quantum Mechanics? ... because of the following from Black's Law
What is INVESTIGATION?
a term that means to examine and to look at carefully, discover the facts or make a legal inquiry.
http://thelawdictionary.org/investigation/
Where, in all of the definitions of "investigation" is there any intimation of legal guilt? Or of guilt at all?
If anyone can find proof or evidence that establishes a link demonstrating how "being investigated" means "proof of guilt", feel free to let me know, because then I will simply call your local PD and have you "investigated" for any random thing that pops in my head, which will, instantly, per your own definitions and logic, make you guilty of whatever crime I decide to accuse you of when I share it with the police, likely with multiple original IP addresses and e-mail accounts, giving obvious credibility.
and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why being under "investigation" is not the same thing as being "guilty". Especially because of the above paragraph... because everyone will, eventually, be under investigation for some reason, be it to establish credit, a mortgage, buy a car, get a drivers license, bet hired for a job or any of the myriad other reasons that people are "investigated" in real life.
What this boils down to is the bias failure in a persons brain. People don't consider the implications of instant judgement about a title, book cover, article, or any news piece without investigating the facts. This is typical for most people and this is why we, as a species, have things like "brand association" and "trusted news sources" for information.
Is that a bad thing? yes and no.
During this whole argument with an individual whom I did (and still do) hold a great deal of respect for, I tried to point out the logical fallacy of prejudice being displayed by said poster because of the misinterpreted argument of guilt and investigation. I was not treated as being logical. I was treated as being emotional, writing emotionally loaded arguments, and ignoring evidence.
I never ignore evidence.
period.
It goes against everything I believe in. It directly violates my code of conduct that I live by.
I can establish that evidence isn't relevant and that it is not applicable. I can state that evidence is of lesser or greater impact depending on a source or the type of evidence... but I never ignore it.
Ever.
What was the reply of my insistence on clarity for this point?
If you do not choose to admit it you are no better than any of the cranks on [site name deleted]
you look like just the same sort of cranks I deal with on every other site. I will judge both you and [site name deleted] on your response.
I have actual real-life stuff to do; playing games with deniers isn't what I expected here, or from you. Do better.
...and this was not believed to be a threat by said poster! They actually said the following when I asked them why they would threaten me and an entire site:
I'm not making threats
So, the poster, normally rational, has judged me a "denier" and incapable of seeing logic, then says that, because of a difference of opinion and the refusal to accept his specific interpretation of the "investigation", that he will judge an entire site as being like me.
This is why I usually don't get involved with political or subjective arguments. This poster, whom I call friend, has removed me (and an entire site) from their life simply because I didn't blindly accept their misinterpretations as factual ... and because when I presented a fact filled non-subjective argument that directly contradicted their claims, in their mind this then meant that I was a crank or crackpot delusional denier of evidence.
All because I don't believe exactly like they do.
Why am I bringing this up?
There is a trend among the self righteous SJW's: if you don't believe like I do, then you're scum, wrong, and you should be punished as much as possible.
YES - that is the message that they are promoting to the world, and giving to children: think like me or be wrong and punished or ostracized.
... to find out how this all got started, look at part two
Comments
Post a Comment