Not exact matches
Nick Leaton, from London, sees a
political bias behind the decision from the BBC: «Because its the
only thing left that justifies the license fee.
That's not going to help the network's argument that it encourages objectivity — all it's going to do is exacerbate criticism that CNN accepts
bias only when it bends in a specific
political direction.
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.
I wanted to agree with my students; it's natural for Christians to insist that
only our «Jesus
bias» informs our
political attitudes.
The problem of being unable to recognize the obvious
bias stems from the fact that Helen and other BBC editors / reporters / pundits are so far to left on the
political spectrum that they
only recognize «their» views as being of (or around) the centre ground.
That liberals are just as guilty of antiscience
bias comports more with accounts of humans chomping canines, and yet those on the left are just as skeptical of well - established science when findings clash with their
political ideologies, such as with GMOs, nuclear power, genetic engineering and evolutionary psychology — skepticism of the last I call «cognitive creationism» for its endorsement of a blank - slate model of the mind in which natural selection operated on humans
only from the neck down.
# 22 — Your comment is not
only biased fake news, it is also overly
political but it is not deleted by the moderators because it is a liberal comment.
Only particular scientific findings are in dispute and subject to
bias; each
political or other cultural group is pro the science it likes (values alignment), but anti the science it doesn't like (value clash).
Above all, these supposed modeling experts and climate scientists need to terminate their
biases and their evangelism of
political agendas that seek to slash fossil fuel use, «transform» our energy and economic systems, reduce our standards of living, and «permit» African and other impoverished nations to enter the modern era
only in a «sustainable manner,» as callous elitists often insist.
I wouldn't argue that Heartland doesn't have a politcal free - market
bias but to this point Dr. Curry
only hints in abstract and indirect ways the
political color that exists in the IPCC and consensus community.
Yet many
political «leaders» not
only keep backing the fossil fuel horse, they also ignore that the horse is lame, and that the renewable energy horse — to flog the metaphor like a metaphorical Victor Espinoza — would probably have already won the race, if the fossil fuel industry hadn't converted its oats into
biased scientific research and deceptive ad campaigns.
NOAA released
only what was nonresponsive to the inquiry into what role motivated reasoning and
political bias may have played in the adjustments, questions that are totally reasonable given graphs like this and this even before the Watts study.