Sentences with phrase «of ideological bias»

At the same time, he accuses scientists, who arrived at their position through methodical consideration of the full body of evidence, of ideological bias.

Bring open eyes and an open mind, for if you cherish the ox of any aesthetic of ideological bias, de Kooning will gore it.

These ideas of ideological bias are harder to dismiss when supreme court justices vote in a way that benefits the party that nominated them (as is true for the majority voting both sides of this case).

Liberation theology is conducted in a hermeneutical circle which can be entered only in an act of solidarity with the oppressed of the world, an act of such immediacy and commitment that it circumvents the danger of ideological bias normally inherent in political choices.2 From this hermeneutically privileged standpoint, liberation theology proceeds to a social scientific analysis of the situation, which is intended to uncover the structures of oppression and the extensive ideological biases both of the oppressors and of their attendant theologies.

(c) Because these interests are socioculturally situated they are diversely concrete, threatening to fragment «understandings» of God, and they are open to the suspicion of ideological bias; but because they are interests in God the capacities they guide also require cultivation of capacities for conversation with other concrete understandings and capacities for critique of ideological self - deceptions.

Not exact matches

James Damore was fired by Google on Monday for circulating «Google's Ideological Echo Chamber,» a highly controversial 10 - page memo suggesting that women are underrepresented at the company because of biological differences that make them less inclined to tech and leadership roles and not because of bias.

We need to overcome our ideological biases, our financial self - interests, and we need to do a good deal of listening and learning from Africans.

The same is true of many media reform efforts: by attempting to get people excited about liberal bias in the news, or nudity or profanity in a particular program, or the ideological bent of a certain series, or whether a network is «Christian,» concerned leaders have diverted the attention of viewers from the most important problem, the basic point, namely, that the whole process - of - television is providing us with a worldview which not only determines what we think, but also how we think and who we are.

Our way of reading must therefore be examined for its implicit ideological bias and blindness.

20This is not, however, to say that all interest is «biased» or «ideological» in the sense that it expresses, in Ogden's words, «a more or less comprehensive understanding of human existence, or how to exist and act as a human being, that functions to justify the interests of a particular group or individual by representing these interests as the demands of disinterested justice» (The Point of Christology [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1982], p. 94).

Reinhold Niebuhr has not only exposed the ideological bias in definitions of justice, but he reminds us that the settlement of conflicting claims always involves forces which operate above and beyond considerations of principle.

Lacking a fertile ideological soil on which to stake a claim — even in respect to the once fashionable ideology of liberation for the blacks, the poor, the Third World — the theologian purports to turn his back on all ideologies and reclaim «raw» consciousness, which supposedly is free of any group or material biases.

While Sidney B. Simon at the University of Massachusetts and his colleagues claim that their values - clarification approach «does not aim to instill any particular set of values,» they certainly reveal their ideological bias toward the autonomous, bourgeois, rationalistic self when they talk about «learning a process for selecting the best and rejecting the worst elements contained in the various value systems.

Wintemute's rigor has earned the respect of some ideological opponents, but others say that his work betrays antigun biases by, for instance, selectively citing the literature in a way that minimizes the value of firearms for self - defense.

On that point, I think the following conference invitation from a branch of the National Council of Social Studies offers a simple Rorschach test to gauge how far apart we really are in determining what constitutes ideological bias.

The primary concern is not ideological bias but the apparent narrow - mindedness of today's instructional focus.

TOK aims to make students aware of the interpretative nature of knowledge, including personal ideological biases — whether these biases are retained, revised or rejected.

It is the engaged feminist intellect (like John Stuart Mill's) that can pierce through the cultural - ideological limitations of the time and its specific «professionalism» to reveal biases and inadequacies not merely in the dealing with the question of women, but in the very way of formulating the crucial questions of the discipline as a whole.

A segment of the Board of Trustees, many of whom resigned going back to 2008, the last bunch of which has resigned in June 2015, had an ideological bias against giving merit scholarships to children of the middle class, a bias that conveniently covered up their own failures of duties as trustees.

When discussing various observers» attitudes towards some body of objective data, such as the data underlying the science of climate change, those who evaluate the data without undue ideological bias might better be described as «impartial» rather than as «objective».

This goes to what I describe in Chapter 4 as the policy - dependent nature of wider public perceptions as well as our own ideological biases as a community of people actively working to create social change on the issue.

When scientists and advocates, motivated by these biased perceptions, take action by responding with tit - for - tat attacks on climate skeptics, it takes energy and effort away from offering a positive message and engagement campaign that builds public support for climate action and instead feeds a downward spiral of «war» and conflict rhetoric that appears as just more ideological rancor to the wider public.

I was interested in the climate wars prior to that — but hearing what she had to say piqued my interest because for quite a while I have been interested in what sorts of things bias how people reason I have been particularly interested in how people use pattern - finding to make sense of the world, and how people's cultural / social / ideological / experiential / psychological identifications affect their cognition and reasoning.

It is my recollection that you have, in addition to complimenting Dan's work, on more than one occasion spoken about how his conclusions are affected by his own biases (or reflect motivated reasoning in his part, as it were), largely the result of his ideological orientation.

And the work of the few who do, is biased by their ideological beliefs — e.g., advocating irrational policies to justify mandating and subsidising renewable energy and imposing carbon pricing schemes.

For example, if you agree that people of all ideological and cultural and political stripes are vulnerable to identity - oriented «motivated - reasoning,» then what do you think about articles that finger point about about the biases among «liberal» scientists even as the political orientation of the author is dismissed as a potentially relevant factor?

He manages to publish articles by every biased organisation under the sun from global warming sceptics, real science poo pooers, ideological nutcases, one eyed fossil fuel lobbyists, sycophants of large business politicos, and the would be destroyers of public services and regulation.

Maybe you're smarter than the predominant opinion among experts — but two questions need to be asked: (1) to what degree is your view of the evidenced biased by your ideological identity (you clearly have a very strong ideological identity on this issue) and, (2) how could you possibly state a certainty about such a counterfactual in such a highly uncertain context?

The fallacies develop as a result of journal and academic ideological bias, as well as advocacy research funding, while refusal to debate protects and reinforces these established logical fallacies.

The study also found that awareness of the scientific consensus can even offset ideological biases — «Consensus information also neutralizes the effect of worldview» (see this post for more details on this paper).

And which, at its core, if seemingly complicated on this issue (and highly colored by non recognized bias, ideological belief, conflation of the topic with fear of redress, and a remarkable sea of misinformation) is about as basic a mistake as can be made.

Seems to me that the basic principles of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, cultural cognition, group - think, etc., illustrate how these patterns in how people reason apply w / o differentiation by ideological orientation.

most of our ideological opponents think they're actually right about the science, which means they would not want to prevent science from being taught, but rather prevent what they view as biased environmentalist science being taught.

Taking a neutral stance at this point on rehashed work from «NIPCC» (Fred Singer and friends), well known for serial, serious errors in overall interpretation, analysis and communication of the science and transparent but largely unexamined ideological bias at play in their playground «reports» — never mind suggesting that this kind of effort «competes» with the work of the world's climate scientists and the 2,500 multidisciplinary specialists contributing to IPCC reports combined with the tens of thousands of additional scientists and many others who raise real questions that result from reading, reviewing, evaluating and evolving the information in both IPCC summaries and domestic science and discussion of the science, knowledgeably and in good faith and with open identification of the nature of the social and political issues — is just not credible.

This polarization is a classic sign of ideological / cultural bias, yet your assignment of «correct» to one side automatically colors the rest of your investigation to only look for that bias on the opposite, Rep / Con side, and this is what drives the whole scope of your explanations above.

«The intense politicization of climate science makes bias more likely to be coming from political and ideological perspectives than from funding sources,» she writes.

But: What does it say about the man that he is prepared to dismiss what they say out of hand because of his own ideological confirmation bias.

The reasons are complex, but suffice it to say that there is a well documented positive results bias that should instill a sense of caution, especially where there is a strong overlap between science and monetary or ideological interests.

You reference several blog posts by J. Duarte - who seems to feel that the Cook et al authors were dishonest idiots (the paper passed peer review of methods and results by reviewers the editors respected for domain knowledge), that the raters were blinded by ideological bias (totally ignoring the author ratings giving confirming identical results), complaining about raters discussing criteria (when it's essential for everyone to agree on the same critera, clarifying ambiguities - and that radom presentation prevented collusion on any particular item), and in general making truly absurd and unsupported accusations.

«The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives».

Apart from the irony of using a Deltoid blog to try and show that those two suffer from «ideological blinkers» (don't get me wrong, I enjoy Deltoid, in good part because he is so honest about where he is coming from that I know where I stand), the posts you link to in no way show an inescapable conclusion of ideology as far as I can see, and I stand by my position of incomprehension that you would discount anything those two say on grounds of proven ideological bias.

Not being rude, but I get the feeling that the conclusion is more that you don't agree with them, and don't understand how they can hold some of the views they do, which is not the same thing as ideological bias.

Back in the day when science was not questioned because sciences asked questions instead of as the case for AGW where science just supplies answeres without even a question being asked, data physical measurement, and strict adherence to the scientific method were what drove science and there was no political or ideological influences biasing whart was done.

On the first one, I think most people agree that in open - debate publications, everybody is better off if ideological bias are eliminated from the selection of advertisements.

And in a final act of terminal naivety — «The intense politicization of climate science makes bias more likely to be coming from political and ideological perspectives than from funding sources.»

It's a result of deep cultural flaws, one of which is an ideological bias that science is truth.