I'm suggesting that the easiest person to fool is always yourself. Look, we know that's a fact from psychology. Look at these sets of lines:
Now, if you were asked to compare the length of the first one to the other three, and decide which of the three were most equal to the first, can you imagine any situation under which you might honestly answer "A" instead of "C"? I mean, A is visibly shorter, is it not?
Yet, in the Asch conformity experiment, fully 36% of the subjects did exactly that - answered that A was the closer match - when they were surrounded by confederates (research assistants whose collaboration with the researchers is unknown to the subject) who all answered A.
Not a single one of the subjects who so misanswered was aware that they had done so to conform to the rest of the group; they had genuinely perceived that A was the closer match, because of the effect of conformity. These were completely healthy, normal individuals.
Do you understand the relevance? There are all manner of factors that make you see things that simply aren't there before we even get into mental illness. Of course, nearly one in 16 Americans have a serious mental illness that could cause hallucinations or mental artifacts, so it's not unreasonable to suggest some mental defect on your part, either.
But my point is that even a normal, healthy brain can be made to see things that simply aren't there at all. That's a known fact from psychology. What makes you think you're any different than a normal person?
quote:Suppose, just prior to the paint strokes occurring (as described in the previous example), you had been prompted (say, by a "still, small voice") to answer the question, "What is your favorite portrait?" and you had answered unequivocally, "the Mona Lisa...THAT is my favorite portrait!" and then, suddenly, the Mona Lisa portrait mysteriously appeared only hours later, what would you say? Would you describe THAT as self-centered?
Why are you talking about a painting? What does that have to do with anything, unless it is the very thing that happened to you?
You claimed that you had no way of predicting what was coming next, but a half-finished portrait provides some pretty good clues about what will appear next. If the nose is there, for example, you have a pretty good chance of predicting where the eyes and mouth are going to be.
If science is biased on unbiased objective evidence, then that makes science unbiased, not biased. Negative plus positive, equals negative.
bias: A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective.
This description does not fit the definition of science. Science is not subjective.
There is a difference between the word "based" and "bias".
quote: "I'm suggesting that the easiest person to fool is always yourself. Look, we know that's a fact from psychology."
crashfrog...seriously, I get your point, it's just that your above statement is more "punny" than factual. Afterall, the word "fact" is a scientific term around here, just as, say, the word "empirical" is, so I'm just hoping you'll try to be more precise when using such terms. Otherwise, we're not going to understand what you're trying to say, know what I mean?