Confirmation Bias
- Wade Robins
- Jul 22, 2018
- 2 min read
I would like to present a hypothetical situation. First think of your best friend or most cherished loved one. Now, imagine a surprising turn of events where police officers show up unannounced and arrest them on charges of suspected murder. Thankfully, as Americans we are protected with the right to a fair trial. Still, this is a very serious situation because if your friend is found guilty it would mean life in prison or even possibly the death penalty. There are two lawyers assigned to the case; the prosecutor and the defendor to represent opposite sides of the potential crime. One lawyer attempts to prove guilt while the other tries to represent innocents. You really hope the defence lawyer is very good while also thinking poorly of the prosecutor. As the trial proceeds and any new evidence is brought forward you tend to support and confirm anything suggesting innocents, but then you plug your ears and la la la when any possibly incriminating evidence is examined. To avoid an unfair trial, a jury of unbiased people are asked to examine the evidence for both sides. They don’t know your friend or the victim of the murder. The jury is indifferent to whether your friend goes to prison, but they also do care for true justice and don’t want to wrongfully accuse an innocent person. They listen to ALL the evidence on both sides. True and fair justice is blind and excludes any confirmation bias.
As this is only a hypothetical fiction, let’s pretend further that your friend really did commit a murder. Guilty! the verdict is announced with the crash of the gavel. Would you still want to be their friend? Would you continue to pledge your loyalty and love to this person? Or would you value justice and have your friend receive a punishment that suits the crime?
Now to bring this full circle let’s imagine one more hypothetical situation. Let’s pretend for a moment that your cherished and loved religion is on trial. It is brought before a fair trial in courts on suspected accounts of not being true. As the trial proceeds and new evidence is brought forward, will you tend to favor the evidence that supports innocents while ignoring information that proves guilt? What if your religion really was guilty of being false? Would you abandon it and continue to search for the actual truth or would you continue to pledge your loyalty because it’s still an ok religion even though it’s not true. In the non-hypothetical real world there are those who defend religion while others prosecute. Each side is influenced with a personal confirmation bias. However, there is also a just and fair jury to evaluate true information. Not Mormons or Ex-Mormons, but people who are indifferent and plainly study the history and facts.
I strongly encourage everyone to try and always consider all evidence while at the same time trying to be aware of personal confirmation bias. Truth withstands scrutiny. Question everything.
Opmerkingen