J
Jbrady
Guest
Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Your understanding of philosophy needs improvement. . . .
Last edited:
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
I think subjectivity and bias are different things.HarryStotle:
(First of all, I am going to use the term “reporting” not to mean what journalists do, but what historians do, so don’t get misled).
No. You didn’t answer the question at all, which was about objective reporting, not objective truth.
Isn’t all reporting by necessity subjective? Is there such a thing as an unbiased reporter? Even chroniclers listing simple events are biased as to what events to include on their list.
So can you have a more or less biased reporter? Yes. But not a more or less objective one, unless you are using the word loosely.
For example, Richard III having a hunchback or not is an objective fact - either he did have it or he didn’t.
Historians between Stuart times and 2015 or so pretty unanimously concluded, on the (limited) information available to them, that Richard III was not a hunchback and that portraits of him were deliberately altered in Tudor times as a propaganda thing (Richard having been the enemy of the first Tudor to sit the throne, Henry VII).
Cut to 2015, when his actual body, proven to be such by DNA analysis, was found. Showing a pronounced scoliosis (deformation of the spine - in other words a hunchback). Throws everything previous historians thought into doubt.
It’s not objective facts that change, but the information we have about them certainly does. And few historical facts can be known in a way that truly puts them beyond doubt or beyond possibility of revision in light of new information. In that sense most historical knowledge is subjective.
That is different to bias - bias implies prejudgement and distorting available information deliberately to make that information fit what you think it ought to mean. Example - if I jump to a conclusion that my husband is cheating, his every conversation with an attractive woman afterwards, however innocent seeming, can be twisted in my mind to be yet more evidence. Possibly he isn’t cheating at all, but if I am biased enough towards thinking so, I can make the available infomation fit that narrative.
Last edited:
J
Jbrady
Guest
No. You were fine until then. Bias just means selectivity.
For example, if you and I both saw a car crash, our reports are going to differ based on what we select to consider significant and important enough to report. It doesn’t mean that one of us is deliberately lying or distorting. Just that our evaluation of what we perceived is different. Like I might mention that the passenger in the red car was an attractive woman, and you might counter that you hadn’t really noticed, but you did notice that the cop was hot. Or I might use a lot of precise car talk to describe the situation, while you might be more vague because you don’t know as much about cars.
Bias does not necessarily mean deliberate distortion.
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Degrees of objectivity, yes, but complete objectivity without bias, no. Historical events are filtered through the lens of human subjectivity, perception, and interpretation, which are prone to cognitive error (bias), and that, I think, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Last edited:
J
Jbrady
Guest
Actually, I just explained that above.
Bias need not be erroneous, which I also discussed above.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
If you mean cognitive bias or error, it is erroneous in the sense that you mention, namely, that perceptions differ, albeit inadvertently, based on culture, personal experience, and many other influences. The mere fact of focusing on only one aspect of a situation rather than the total picture is a form of subjective bias or error.
Last edited:
J
Jbrady
Guest
I’m going to disagree there. I would consider an error to be reporting something that was not true. Otherwise, all reporting would be erroneous, as no reporter will ever, or can, give the total picture. I would say that all reporting would be biased, but not necessarily erroneous.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
From a psychological perspective, cognitive bias and cognitive error are the same. There is a lack of logic (but not reason) in recounting an event from a particular viewpoint, while paying little attention to other viewpoints. To the degree that the total picture is attempted, the cognitive bias or error is reduced, but never fully eliminated.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
Sorry about that, Of course, you are correct. But just change my post–I’m sure that Eagle Forum is quite capable of defending their founder! In her lifetime, she faced many enemies who attempted to discredit her or worse, and most of those enemies went down. And I think the credit for torpedoing the ERA can go mainly to Ms. Schlafly–God bless her and R.I.P.! I am grateful.
The two organizations have a lot in common, and for anyone who is interested, Peeps has read through their “beliefs” and agrees with everything. I see nothing contradictory to Catholic teaching in their stands.
I’m impressed that even though the founders of both organizations are no longer active in their organization (Ms. Schlafly has passed away, and Ms. LaHaye is 90 and retired!), the organizations continue to be active. CWA and Eagle Forum were/are defintely not personality cults.
I would challenge Catholics to look up both organizations and decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with the goals of each. I think many Catholics will be surprised, although I realize that many Catholics do not support the “small government” approach here in the U.S.
Last edited:
2
27lw
Guest
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
The Kennedy family is fabulously wealthy and has many safeguards to protect their privacy. They are often referred to as “American Royalty,” and I think this is an accurate description of how they are viewed by many Americans. I think because of this perception that many Americans have of the Kennedy family, this family has learned that publicity, bad or good, increases their support base as well as their power, political influence, and wealth.
Finally, people truly LOVE the Kennedys, and there are always plenty of friends and supporters that the Kennedys can turn to when they are accused of something heinous. I admire many aspects of the Kennedy family (e.g., the Special Olympics was founded by a Kennedy).
Ms. Schlafly (and most other Evangelical Protestant 'celebrities) was NOT fabulously wealthy or powerful, and she faced constant derision and attack, even from fellow Christians, including Evangelicals. She was not beautiful, and any power she gained was gained through sheer hard work, not from family name. She was not a part of the “International Jet-set” and people did not excuse or laugh away any failings or flaws. She had NO influence with the entertainment industry, and no friends among the Hollywood, NYC, or London arts crowd (good to have this if you can get it, because these people are so visible, not necessarily because they deserve publicity, but because they attract it just by taking a walk down the street).
The Kennedys and Ms. Schlafly just can’t be compared. It’s not apples and oranges–it’s nectarines and pumpkins!
Last edited:
F
F_Marturana
Guest
She was actually Catholic, I remember seeing her on EWTN, I thought maybe she was a convert from Evangelical Christianity, but she was a cradle Catholic.
P
Peeps
Guest
Do you know what prompted her conversion to Protestantism? Was it marriage? Thanks!
G
gam197
Guest
They are very different groups. I once thought of joining Concerned Women but thought it was more about Evangelical Christian women. Concerned Women was an answer or a group that women could join , kind of like Feminists for Life but much more powerful. It was a women’s group other than National Organization of Women(NOW) that spoke to women’s issues.
Eagle forum really did not have a lot of clout. It seemed to me more like a political PAC. Granted, their basic beliefs may be similar.
Last edited:
G
gam197
Guest
Where have you read she converted? She was a cradle catholic and stayed catholic.
2
27lw
Guest
As F Marturana said, Schlafly was a cradle Catholic.F_Marturana:
Do you know what prompted her conversion to Protestantism? Was it marriage? Thanks!
2
27lw
Guest
So, in other words, no, you don’t know of any shows depicting prominent liberals / Democrats being sexually violated by their spouses.27lw:
Oliver Stone’s JFK shows a recent famous Democrat (President no less - LBJ) being complicit in his predecessor JFK’s murder.
Chappaquuddick shows a recent famous Democrat (Ted Kennedy) all but murdering a girl by knowingly leaving her to die in a car that he drove into a creek.
How many murders have living Democrats (the Clintons) been accused of by now, in addition to running a pedophile ring and Lord knows what else?
In relation to JFK and Jackie there are the loads of affairs, the alleged drug use, Jack or Bobby supposedly murdering Marilyn Monroe because she knew too much. lost count of the shenanigans they are supposed to have gotten up to.
Unless you think someone should be OK with having relatives accused of the above, but draw the line at rape? Sounds highly arbitrary if you do.
J
JulianN
Guest
To be fair, her defense of marital rape, of limiting women’s access to college, etc. won’t make her look good no matter how even-handed the production would attempt to be.
G
gam197
Guest
Many felt the Warren commission findings were not enough. When Stone though the tidbit about Johnson being involved should be in his movie, the media at that time were outraged and made it known.
Another very controversial death. He is senator and he left a girl in his car in the pond without reporting it to police for 10 hours.
There is no movie or series.
There is no movie or series.
Marilyn Monroe was another untimely death, so more speculation. Books have been written after Pres. John F. Kennedy’s death on his infidelities because of his father Joe who had a well-known history of affairs and later Joe’s son Ted’s life especially when it came to his marriage with Joan,
The Kennedy clan were seen as American Royalty and treated as such so lots were written about them. I’ve always thought Bobby Kennedy had more morals maybe because his mother took him out of St. Paul’s in New Hampshire and sent him to Portsmouth Priority, a Benedictine catholic school in Portsmouth RI. while Joe was away and there he stayed for many years. They were not just political families.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Oh, it makes sense all right. Though it may not make sense to you, which are two different things.
Think back to the distinction between subjective truth which is based in the subjective world and objective truth which is based in the objective world. Feelings are subjective because they occur within subjects and are verified solely by the subject.
Objective truths find their verifiability in the objective world. Some are quite obviously objective facts, while other objective truths are more complex and require accumulating numerous facts and data, while making judgements about their relative significance. Such judgements are still objective, although they are complicated.
The tentative determinations about objective reality we might call “opinions,” but that does not imply the ultimate truth resolving diverse opinions is to be found within subjects. The ultimate truth is still objective, but because subjects who attempt to comprehend and assess the objective truth value must engage deeply with a variety of objective facts and the objective reality in the world that can be complicated and vexing, but still it is NOT subjective at base.
Take a simple example — seeing colours in the world. Some mistakenly call seeing colour a subjective process. It isn’t however, because colours are specific wavelengths of light. The capacity to accurately detect colour may vary within individuals because the method by which the detection occurs (perception) might be faulty in some. That does not make the wavelengths of light a subjective reality — it is an objective one.
Last edited:
- Status