RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] last days

["Hargus, Diana" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike, 
Everyone has a bias and/or agenda; they just refuse to see it about
themselves.  Do I have a bias?  Certainly, and about many things!  Do
you have them asa well?  YES!  We are all human.  Our job is to sift
through all the evidence we can find and judge for ourselves.

* -----Original Message-----
* From: EMAIL:PROTECTED 
* [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
* Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:51 PM
* To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
* Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] last days
* 
* On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
* 
* > Mike Miller wrote:
* >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
* >> 
* >>> Bias should also be considered by how the matter is presented 
* >>> contextually.  Furthermore the tone (e.g. "experts" as opposed to 
* >>> "supposed experts") plays a very significant role.
* >> 
* >> Maybe you can show me a published example of the use of "supposed 
* >> experts" or "so-called experts."
* >
* > Or then again, maybe I can't.
* >
* > What's your point?
* 
* 
* That you and someone else (Vern or Christian), and many other 
* Christian fundamentalist conservatives, are constantly 
* complaining about bias in the news media.  These claims of 
* bias usually come as attacks on entire sources of news, like 
* the top US newspapers or an entire broadcasting network.  
* It's almost always presented as "I felt they were biased" and 
* this then leads, always or almost always, to the conclusion 
* that we should not get our news from those sources.
* 
* Today I'm being told by you and someone else (either Vern or 
* Christian) that some of our finest papers are using terms 
* like "supposed experts" and "so-called experts" to dismiss 
* legitimate experts out of hand, or to taint the claims of 
* these experts.  I am skeptical that this is happening so I am 
* asking you to tell me where you've seen it.  I read these 
* papers all the time, but I do mostly focus on science news, 
* but I never see this kind of thing.
* 
* Mike
* 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0410170393oct17,1,5918666.s
tory?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Forensic "science" - I can't recommend this series enough. This
five-part series recently published by the Chicago Tribune does a
fantastic job of exposing the lack of scientific support for many
forensic techniques such as fingerprinting, arson investigation, and
firearm and bite mark identification. It also describes quite well how
the justice system and juries so easily fall for the claims of supposed
"experts," how they became "experts," and why it is so easy for many of
them engage in confirmation bias and belief perseverance. [added
12/1/04]
(swiped from here:
http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow/topiccourtroom.htm )


Diana 
 
***********************
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: 
This e-mail and any attachments are intended only for those to which it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying of this e-mail or the information contained in this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender. If you have received this transmission in error, please return the material received to the sender and delete all copies from your system.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion