Recognising Author Bias

Recognising Author Bias

Evaluating information the argument

RECOGNISING AUTHOR BIAS

WHEN AN author is trying to persuade, whether it is a logical argument or an emotional appeal, he is obviously going to have a view that he or she is trying to express. However, you must realise that behind the author s stated opinion usually lie stated or unstated opinions, preferences, or positions that necessarily influence the ideas that are expressed, the way they are expressed, and the language used to express them. This is what is referred to as an author's bias an author's attitude or prejudice that influences his or her opinion on a subject.

For example, if you are reading an article on the opinion-editorial page of a newspaper written by an assistant commissioner of police about private sector funding for law enforcement, you would expect this person's comments to be biased. You would not be surprised if, because of his job, this person were to favour private sector efforts to support the police. His bias would certainly be in favour of support for the police in general and probably in favour of private sector support in particular. However, an article on the same topic written by a government senator who generally favours less private sector involvement in state and local issues would probably express a different opinion a preference for government funding for police undoubtedly reflecting a very different bias less private sector involvement in state and local issues.

Students, while being able to recognise an author's bias is definitely important in identifying attempts to persuade you of something and in deciding how seriously to take those efforts, remember that an author s bias can be either for or against something and not necessarily a negative thing.

Consider, for example, the following passage in terms of the author's bias concerning the issue of prayer in American public schools.

As a Christian, I quite agree that prayer is not harmful; indeed, my wife and I consider it essential, and want our children to grow up surrounded by it, and partly for that reason they attend a private religious school. But what the Supreme Court has recognised, and school-prayer advocates sometimes miss, is that the ideal of religious freedom means that the state should not express a view on how anyone should pray.

Steven L. Carter, Let us Pray.

In this passage from an article about prayer in American public schools, the author clearly expresses the Christian belief in the value of prayer. However, on the issue of public school prayer, the author just as clearly expresses opposition, apparently on constitutional grounds. Thus, the author seems biased in favour of private religious expression without interference of any kind or form the government, and this bias is in itself neither a positive nor a negative thing; it is merely a preference.

Closely related to the question of author's bias is the concept of tone. An author's tone may in some cases reflect his or her bias. Sometimes this tone is objective, meaning, that the writing shows no emotion, opinion, preference or bias. When an author writes objectively, he or she is not making any bias apparent. This, however, does not mean that the author has no bias; it simply means that he or she is not showing it. Occasionally, it may be possible to get hints of an author's bias when such things are considered as the author's background, if we are given any biographical information or the place the piece was published, if we know something about the philosophy of the publication s editors. Consider the following excerpt from the conclusion of an article published in the Native American Rights Fund Legal Review by an author who is described in an introduction to the article as an attorney representing the Catawba Tribe.

It is generally agreed that underlying all parties reluctance to support a fair settlement was the suspicion that the Tribe had no real leverage; that is, it could not win its case in court. But, for the Catawba Tribe there appeared to be few options. More than two centuries of relying on the good will and promises of the State and Federal Governments had resulted only in the loss of their ancestral lands and severe poverty among tribal members. It now appears that a just settlement is possible. And while the proposed settlement can never fully compensate the Tribe for the loss of its lands and economic self-sufficiency, it is hoped that the settlement will, as Chief Blue stated, provide the Tribe and its members with the tools to work with toward a brighter future.

Don B. Miller, Catawba Tribe vs. South Carolina: A History of Perseverance.

The efforts of the Catawbas to gain rights to land that they claimed was originally theirs is described by the author of this article.Despite his relatively objective language, since the author is a lawyer for the tribe and since the article appeared in a publication put out by an organisation working for Native American rights, it seems clear that the author is not only in favour of the settlement, but that he is also writing with an underlying bias in favour of the Catawba Tribe.

As you continue to evaluate the sources and the information you gathered for the Exposition section make every effort to recognise author biases where they are present.

Now let us see how well you did in responding to the practice questions given last week.

QUESTION 1(A)

The following errors might affect the reliability of Kishauna's research: the inappropriate design of the instrument and an unrepresentative sample.

QUESTION 1(B)

An inappropriate design of the research instrument will result in the collection of irrelevant data, and an unrepresentative sample will mean she cannot generalise about the TV preferences at her school, that is, it would result in an inaccurate analysis and interpretation of the findings.

QUESTION 2

Two considerations that Kishauna should bear in mind as she selects a sample for her study are the size of the sample (it must be wide enough) and it must be reflective of the population.

Congratulations are in order if you had the appropriate responses this week. Well done, you would have been awarded the maximum number of marks in the examination. Next Week we will look at some common errors in reasoning that we need to avoid. Until then, walk good!

Reference: Meagher, Don 1997 Handbook for Critical Reading, Harcourt Brace & Company, Florida, USA.

Common errors to avoid in reasoning

HAPPY NEW year!

I trust you had a blessed, peaceful and holy Christmas. I know you are ready for all that this year will bring - examinations! As I promised you, here are some errors in reasoning that you must avoid when you are evaluating the contents of the various information you have gathered for the orals in the Expository Section. You do this evaluation to determine whether they are valid and reliable. Within the most innocent looking statement from some sources may lurk biases and fallacies in reasoning that may affect the soundness and logic of the information. Careful scrutiny is required to identify the following errors in reasoning and in accounting for their impact on the information received.

1. HASTY GENERALISATION

The writer/speaker bases the argument/conclusion on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. For example, 'I have met many Jamaicans and I am convinced that the average Jamaican does not wish to be told what to do.'

2. NON SEQUITUR (IT DOES NOT FOLLOW)

The writer's/speaker's conclusion is not necessarily a logical result of the facts presented. For example, 'Affirmative action programmes have been established to provide access to educational and professional opportunities that have been denied to certain groups in the past. Since black Rastafarian males have often been at a disadvantage during the last twenty years or so, I feel that I, as a member of this group, deserve special consideration under affirmative action guidelines.'

3. BEGGING THE QUESTION:

The writer/speaker presents as truth (or as a fact already proven) a statement(s) that is yet to be proven by the argument presented. For example, 'Do you think that the recent escalation of violence was politically motivated?'

4. RED HERRING

The writer/speaker introduces an irrelevant point to divert the reader's/listener's attention from the main or relevant issue. For example, 'Government funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) should be discontinued. Taxpayers do not want and should not be expected to pay for so-called 'art' such as Brown's sexual perversions and Smith's sacrilegious trash. It is inexcusable that such things have been supported by tax money through the NEA, which because of such irresponsible decisions should itself be eliminated.'

5. POST HOC (AFTER THIS, THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THIS)

The assumption of a causal relationship between two things simply because one event follows another in time. The second event is being thought to be caused by the first which preceded it. For example, 'The belief that a teacher's absence from a class will result in a fight among students in his/her classroom.'

6. ARGUMENT AD HOMINEM (TO THE MAN)

The writer/speaker attacks the opponent's character rather than the opponent's argument. For example, 'I don't know if it is the minute size of his head which makes him think we are too small to lead.'

7. ARGUMENT AD POPULUM (TO THE PEOPLE)

The writer/speaker evades an issue by appealing to the reader's/listener's emotional reaction to certain words/subjects. For example, using the term 'bloated-capitalist' for 'wealthy business man'.

8. EITHER/OR SYNDROME

An attempt to convince the reader/listener that there are only two ways of viewing or understanding an issue one right, one wrong. For example, 'Were you drunk and not responsible for your actions? I want a straightforward 'yes' or 'no'!'

9. BANDWAGON APPEAL

The writer/speaker attempts to validate a point by suggesting or giving the impression that everyone else believes in it; the idea is acceptable and sound because it enjoys widespread currency. For example, 'It is common belief that the politicians are self-serving.'

10. STRAW MAN

The writer/speaker selects the opposition's weakest or most insignificant point to argue against, in order to divert attention from the real issues. For example, 'Dr. Parchment favours drug legalisation, but this is a view held by very few Jamaicans. Indeed, no responsible citizen wants to encourage drug addiction or the crime associated with the use of illicit drugs.'

11. FAULTY ANALOGY

The writer/speaker uses an extended (often irrelevant) comparison as proof of a point. Analogy might suggest similarities but by itself it cannot prove anything. For example, one might refer to a battle as if it were a game and perhaps a game of chess may be like a battle in several respects, but the comparisons cannot be pressed far.

12. ARGUING IN A CIRCLE

In the course of a discussion the writer/speaker uses the actual statement in question to prove either that the statement is true or that another statement is true. For example, 'A maintains that Christians lead better lives than others. B then mentions some Christians who lead disreputable lives. Whereupon A denies that these are Christians.'

13. VAGUENESS

A writer/speaker uses terms that have not been defined in such a way as to give the impression that they have universally acceptable meanings. For example, 'Education, romance, rich wealth, crowd.'

14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

The reference to expert knowledge to support an argument without sufficient acknowledgement that an authority on one subject may be unreliable on another and that a man that is usually unreliable may occasionally be right.

15. TABLOID THINKING

A form of generalisation by which the writer/speaker tends to over-simplify complex issues by labelling and putting things into convenient categories for easy solutions. For example, 'Communists want to make everybody the same.'

Study these and try to apply them to some of the information you have gleaned in your research

Evaluating the argument
By Debbie Harris, Contributor

FOR THOSE among us who have been working on The Expository Section, we are all anxious to complete it and get it out of the way. As we come to the end of this module, let us consider critically the following arguments and attempt to identify the fallacy which we think is present.

A) Read the following two reports and answer the questions based on them, giving reasons for your answers.

1. The quiet farming district of Belnavis in deep rural St. Richard has witnessed a tremendous influx of visitors over the past three days. Many are drawn to the site of what locals are calling a modern day miracle. When this reporter visited Belnavis on New Year's Day the Mayor confirmed: "Since the Bishop's visit on Christmas Day there has been a miracle at the abandoned well at Eastside. After years of contamination from the bauxite factory, the water in the well is now safe for use. It's true because he even drank some of it. Now our water problems are over."

a) Consider the argument implicit in the Mayor's statement. Briefly explain what fallacy you think is present.

2. Defeated Member of Parliament and leader of the People's Lightning League, Sir. John Brown, is crying foul at the results of the January 5 general elections. Sir Brown says that this has been the most fraudulent elections in the history of Cali. "Never in my life have I seen this level of bogus voting, the stuffing of ballot boxes and the intimidation of voters." When asked what proof he had of these alleged election day malpractice, Sir John retorted, "It is plain for all to see. Nobody can dispute it and especially since it was reported in The Daily Truth, the nation's largest selling newspaper and the most prestigious in the English-speaking Caribbean." An appeal in the High Court is expected.

b) Consider critically Sir John Brown's argument implicit in his statement and briefly explain what fallacy you think is present.

B) For each of the following cases identify the fallacy and say why the reasoning is unsound.

1. A group of women were discussing their household problems. Mrs. Walters, their hostess, joined the group saying: "I'm so glad we're talking about these problems. It's so important to talk about things that are on our minds. We spend so much of our time in the kitchen that of course our household problems are our minds. So, it's important to talk about them."

2. If a coat or suit becomes old, ragged or out of style, we don't continue to wear it. We replace it with a new one. Similarly, employees who reach the age of 65 should be forced to retire to make way for younger people with energy and fresh ideas.

3. The recent frequency of prenatal genetic counseling raises the fear that fetuses will be selected for abortion merely on the chance that they may not grow up to meet preconceived ideals of appearance, intelligence, or sexuality.

See how well you can analyse these arguments. Use the notes which I gave last week to help you answer the questions. Remember that it is important for you to explain why the reasoning is unsound. I will provide the suggested responses to the given exercises in the next publication.

Module one - evaluating arguments
By Debbie Harris, Contributor

I AM sure you found the exercises I gave you for home assignment quite easy. Let's see how well you did. Here are the suggested responses to those exercises given in the last publication.

A. QUESTION: (1a) Consider the argument implicit in the Mayor's statement. Briefly explain what fallacy you think is present.

The quiet farming district of Belnavis in deep rural St Richard has witnessed a tremendous influx of visitors over the past three days. Many are drawn to the site of what locals are calling a modern day miracle. When this reporter visited Belnavis on New Year's Day the Mayor confirmed: "Since the Bishop's visit on Christmas Day there has been a miracle at the abandoned well at Eastside. After years of contamination from the bauxite factory, the water is now safe for use. It's true because he even drank some of it. Our water problems are now over."

ANSWER: The Mayor's statement implies that Belnavis' water problems are now over as a result of the Bishop's visit. The argument suggests a cause and effect relationship. It is fallacious because someone's mere visit could not cause the water to become clean; it does not follow simply because the clean water is preceded by his visit. The Mayor also makes an attempt to make it believable by saying that the Bishop "even drank some of it". The fallacy is post hoc/false cause.

QUESTION: (2b) Consider critically Sir John Brown's argument implicit in his statement and briefly explain what fallacy you think is present.

Defeated Member of Parliament and leader of the People's Lightning League, is crying foul at the results of the January 5th General Elections. Sir John Brown says that this has been the most fraudulent election in the history of Cali. "Never in my life have I seen this level of bogus voting, the stuffing of ballot boxes and the intimidation of voters." When asked what proof he had for these alleged Election Day malpractices, Sir John retorted, "It is plain for all to see. Nobody can dispute it and especially since it was reported in The Daily Truth, the nation's largest selling and most prestigious newspaper in the English speaking Caribbean." An appeal in the High Court is expected.