Because bias does not necessarily mean fixation of results
Because biased motive does not necessarily mean rigged results.
I'm not dismissing the examination of bias (or ulterior motive) at all.
What I don't agree with is using their personal motive to debunk their argument
okay, now you're just being a touch wierd. Not against examining motive, but at the same time, we shouldn't because it doesn't necessarily skew one's perceptions and/or results? I think that you're position is from the third quote, so the others become a touch odd.
as to the last one--Herodotus is dismissed on many things. Egyptian records are often dismissed. The "official" date of Kim Jong Il's birth is dismissed (official, that is, as given by the DPRK government). ICR is dismissed because of their bias/motive. I am wary, highly wary, of a translation of Hammurabi's code that only has forty of the over two hundred laws in a history book. Personal motive is enough to destroy a person's position. Their bias is enough to destroy a their position. Their motive is enough to destroy their position.
My Iran example, while apparently random, deals directly with the specific off-topic topic we're on. I meant it as an example of where questioning motive is incredibly important. And notice how the motive (that we think they have) destroy's Iran's position of "just wanting it for peace"?
It seems we're moving a little bit with this off-topic topic, with the bias/motive thing. I just want to clarify, that the motive establishes a bias. A bias doesn't necessarily establish a motive, but I'd say that it often happens (if you're biased in favor of something, you will, even if it's subconciously, portray it in a better light, the motive being to show how much better it is. a tad confusing, I think . . .)
Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC
Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.