All men are biased

submitted by [deleted] from self.whatever

Everyone has a model of how reality works. So everyone writes from their view of the word.

Therefore it is the opposite of based to refuse to refuse to think about what someone else writes because have a different bias than you. Just because someone is biased it doesn't mean they aren't right. Someone else can be correct even if you don't like their conclusion.

EDIT: Perhaps I should have said that the truth is biased, and there is nothing wrong with bias. The truth is biased against anything contrary to it.

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Mazurro 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

It is the other way of saying "there are different ways to see the truth" or "there is more than one truth" which is absolutely wrong.

Let's say, I claim there are two genders and you come with the woke idea of infinite genders, who is right? Both of us? Or the truth is somewhere in between?

The only fact that makes your point somewhat right are the circumstances and the fact that we all are different, yet alone examples doesn't change a scientific or measurable statement for majority of people.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Unless you are God, your thoughts are not ontological truth.

Where did I say objective truth did not exist? The idea that truth has to be non-biased to be true is wrong, and schools that teach it are wrong. It produces sheeple that attack the messenger and not the message.

[–]Mazurro 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Unless I am God, I can't know for sure that my thoughts are true - sure.

However, nowadays there are ways to test claims that are being made, to back up words with data, experiments and do it scientifically. If someone will just come and say gibberish as "the world is flat" and I am supposed to listen to him as if he was blessed Prophet and to discuss his idiocy - not going to.

There are topics which are debatable and sometimes hearing another point of view can turn our own idea, which is needed and which is okay. But there is a huge pack of topics, where the point stays the same no matter what, because it relies on science, not feelings or unscientific observations.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Science does not answer questions of ontology. Philosophy does. For example, physics tells you how a mathematical abstraction called a particle behave according to the laws of physics, but you’d be hard pressed to define what is really a particle, not just behaves like a particle.

True reductio ad absurdem is not reducing a claim to something that sounds absurd to you but a reduction to a logical contradiction. Although someone’s claim sounds absurd to you, you should not dismiss it until it leads to a logical contradiction

[–]Mazurro 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Although someone’s claim sounds absurd to you, you should not dismiss it until it leads to a logical contradiction

We live in a real world, not in Oxford's debate. However yes, philosophical problems are solved by philosophy and there is the field of discussion, even more directly, only one topic of philosophy is being discussed nowadays - ethic.

But still, there is no much that can be done except discussing and changing perception, but the solution to problem and conclusion is only favouring one of the groups of discussion. Examples? Euthanasia - you either allow it, or not, or with some exceptions. Abortion - same stuff. Death penalty - here it's even more polarised, either you want it, or not.

But as someone said there, the true intelligence is being able to decide with a knowledge of both of points of view. And I doubt any intelligent person doesn't know another point of view when making his own thought on a problem.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with you. It’s not a debate club. Maybe it’s just my own experience but my worldview has been rocked from experiencing the realization that what I once thought to be absurd is in fact true.

[–]AXXA👁⃤웃 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/f_scott_fitzgerald_100572

[–]fatman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Disagree, you can feel however you want to, but there are objective truths that can be uncovered and shared.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There is objective truth, so that's why you should give a fair listen to others. If there were no objective truth no one could be wrong.

[–]suzew 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

so are all women

[–]jet199Instigatrix 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

No, we're always right

[–]chottohen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're interested in this topic, you would like to read How Real Is Real? written by a Stanford psychotherapist. He gives many examples of situations in which it is difficult or impossible to determine the objective truth. It might be out of print but try your library.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"We each can only see the world through our own eyes" - me, just now