Fake Objectivity

[Sapiens]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

I think you are correct. One of the best examples of this crusade for false objectivity among the teach the controversy crowd.

Answers in Genesis states:

A Teach-the-Controversy approach is good for education, good for science, and truly better for both sides.

“Using scientific disagreements over topics such as evolution to help students learn more about how science deals with controversy is a valuable part of the learning process,” according to Louisiana’s Central Community School Board member Jim Lloyd. Lloyd is author of the school board’s new policy to provide helpful guidance to teachers who wish to teach about controversial scientific topics such as evolution, global warming, and human cloning.

A ‘Teach-the-Controversy’ approach helps both advocates and critics of evolutionary theory to have a better understanding of the claims ofevolution and its supporting evidence,” Lloyd explains. “Teaching this and all subjects objectively means presenting both the scientific evidence for and against each theory.” Louisiana’s ground-breaking 2008 Science Education Act (LSEA) permits teachers to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories.

As far the media goes, objectivity is giving equal time to both sides, not making judgement, and allowing me to decide where the truth lies. If the media decides for me what is truth and presents their case, that is not objectivity IMO.

This is quite insidious, it assumes that both sides have an equal scientific base.

The argument is structured (using pseudoscience) in such a way that if one follows it through, it appears as though "Teaching the Controversy" is a reasonable and "right" thing to do for school-age children.

Correct premises are established:

1. Scientists have disagreements about evolution; specific disagreements about the way evolution works, what factors influence it, if it proceeds at a constant or variable rate, etc.
2. Scientists do not know everything about evolution.
3. There are rare instances where the data (possibly incomplete data) do not fit into the current evolutionary model.
4. Scientists have made historical and factual mistakes about evolution. They have dared to change their minds and their theories about aspects of evolution when faced with contrary data. (In other words, scientists are guilty of being not as cock-sure of their theories as fundamentalists are of theirs.)
5. The best education is one that encourages students to look at legitimate arguments and talk about them, forming their own conclusion. (Although even this has the potential for abuse.) Examples:

• Who won a political debate?
• Should the world spend more money today for a green earth tomorrow?
• Did Native Americans cross in 1, 2, 3 or more waves?

From those correct premises, leaps of illogic are then made:

1. If scientists disagree about evolution, it must be entirely wrong, in full.
2. If scientists do not know everything about evolution, it must be entirely wrong, in full.
3. When any single event or fact cannot be explained, today, the theory that explains most things must be entirely wrong, in full.
4. If a mistake is made, or a theory is changed, it proves there is a controversy in the scientific community. It also generally proves someone wants to hide that controversy.
5. Since science is ignorant of all these things, the god of the gaps is the only answer.

These leaps of illogic are then used to "rationally" reach a conclusion:

Since evolution is wrong, and even the scientists agree it is wrong, then the best thing for students, and the best way to challenge students even according to liberals' own views of education is to "teach the controversy" and let students decide.
​

The culture of the U.S. is replete with aphorisms like "there are two sides to every story", "let the reader decide", and so on. This predisposes people who are not experts in science to agree that it is important to teach both sides. The facts that creationism is not an accepted part of the game by any reasonable definition of science, and that any real extant controversy is over the minutiae irrelevant to the overarching question of "How does life change on this planet?", are facts thoroughly denied hidden by the creationists.
Most educational resources reinforce that the straw man controversy of "evolution" vs. "God" is not real, is not represented in any scientific literature, and should most certainly not be taught in a public school biology course.

But the fact is that on one side you have hard one scientific knowledge and conclusions on the other people who want to disprove the science, fail to do so and who also fail to come up a non-falsifiable theory that might serve as a legitimate alternate explanation. The two views are no standing on equal ground, but the anti-evolutionists demand that "objectivity" treat them both the same. That demand is a great failure in objectivity in and of itself.

With thanks to Wiki and Rationalwiki and Answers in Genesis.

 

[Skwim]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

I'd use the term "fairness" rather than "objectivity." And, of course, fairness does not necessarily mean equal.

In main, objective journalism consists of presenting the facts whether or not one likes or agree with those facts. And, to remain neutral and unbiased regardless of one's opinion or personal beliefs.


.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I kind of expected folks to be capable of working out the meaning in which objectivity was being used in the OP from context. But this is RF, after all. I wonder why I thought people would forego the low hanging fruit here.

I have no idea why you would expect the average RF poster to be able to extract connotation from context.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I believe that's Kurt Vonnegut, if my memory serves. Of course, it may double-foot-fault or serve wide, too. You never know.

Who?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Who?

lol!

 

[Kueid]

Hum.. seems people are saying what other people should do and more, not just what to do but how too.. wow, you guys are sooo so. Objectivity through the roof!

 

[crossfire]

Hum.. seems people are saying what other people should do and more, not just what to do but how too.. wow, you guys are sooo so. Objectivity through the roof!

Hahaha! **passes Kueid some real (not fake) popcorn to snack on while reading the irony in the thread.**

 

[Kueid]

Hahaha! **passes Kueid some real (not fake) popcorn to snack on while reading the irony in the thread.**

This guy knows!!

**eat some real (not fake) popcorn Michael Jackson Thriller style.**

 

[Mister Emu]

John Oliver did a great bit on this when he brought 100 scientists on stage, 97 of whom were in the climate change camp, and 3 of whom were deniers. This is in contrast to media that puts one denier up against one believer, as if that's objective.

But, the second scenario is objective. An objective look at something doesn't include the number of people who believe it as part of the argument proper.

I meant that the journalist should do research to confirm what the truth is, and then present it to the public, rather than giving everyone their few minutes and then metaphorically shrugging.

I didn't say they should metaphorically shrug, but they shouldn't be taking a side. "Here is what a majority of scientists say is happening and why and what will happen if we don't do x, there is a minority of qualified scientists who believe x, and say this why...."

If one side is more represented by the facts report it, but report the whole issue. Objectively.

But of course you shouldn't rely on the media.

Well no, but if I have to do research to know what the issue really is at all, they are useless. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't hold those who report for us to a very high standard of impartiality.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

There is some truth in what you say. The problem is where do you draw the line? Siding with the truth can mean taking sides on controversial and two-sided issues, to some at least. How many in the BBC already construe real objectivity as arguing the case for Britain to stay in the EU? There is a balance to be struck here. Sometimes you don't need to give equal time, but the media should certainly err on the side of caution and generally not take sides.

 

[icehorse]

@Mister Emu said:

But, the second scenario is objective. An objective look at something doesn't include the number of people who believe it as part of the argument proper.

purist

 

[Mister Emu]

purist

I concede.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I notice these days that it's quite popular to indulge oneself in the intellectually dishonest practice of faking objectivity. The media seems to be especially addicted to faking objectivity.

That is, the truth might be clearly on the side on x, but the media will go out of its way to give equal time to not-x on the grounds that doing so is being objective.

Balderdash! Being objective has nothing necessarily to do with merely giving equal time to two opposing points of view. Being objective -- truly objective -- demands that you side with the truth. You simply cannot be objective while pretending that a falsehood has equal weight as a truth.

But what do you think?

It's an interesting point. I'm freelancing a little here, so bear with me...you're used to my ramble by now anyway, Sunny...lol

I think there can be various reasons people approach things this way, and I don't think they are all related to intellectual dishonesty, so I'll go through what I see one by one;

1) Binary thinking. I don't know how global this is, but we are commonly trained to think in binary terms. Things are right or wrong. God exists or doesn't. It's pants-free Friday or pants-free Not-Friday. The extrapolation of this mindset is that when considering a problem, and wanting to check my own prejudice, I start looking at it 'from the other point of view'. Far from intellectual dishonesty, this might be an honest approach at empathy, or rationalisation. It's flawed, and overly simplistic, in almost all cases, but it's honest ignorance, so to speak.

2) Debate technique. Simplistically, I can take the air out of the other side of an argument by raising that side's key points, and refuting them (even if indirectly) or presenting them in a questionable way. I see this a lot with 'reasonable' political pundits, who will acknowledge the good points of opponents in such a way as to lead the reader to assume such good points are rare, and flawed, whilst looking more reasonable in their own points. There is an element of intellectual dishonesty here, perhaps, unless you consider debating (or lawyering) as being truly at it's best when both sides strive to win. I think there probably are some who feel this competitive method is the way to bring the best out of BOTH sides. So I allow for this not always being intellectually dishonest.

3) Defensive technique. To avoid accusations of bias, I will somewhat rigidly examine an issue from both sides, even whilst having an opinion already formed. This is intellectually dishonest...or at least, I can't easily think of a situation where it is not.

BUT...
In terms of the media, I think we largely get the type of argument and presentation we deserve (as a whole population, not as individuals).
The reason the media handles things in this way is ultimately consumer driven, so instead of pointing fingers, we should perhaps look in mirrors. Or at the very least, financially support instances of good journalism?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How can you determine who clearly has truth on their side if you don't get a presentation of all sides.

Can you ever get a presentation of all sides?

 

[Revoltingest]

To avoid accusations of bias, I will somewhat rigidly examine an issue from both sides, even whilst having an opinion already formed. This is intellectually dishonest...or at least, I can't easily think of a situation where it is not.

It is not dishonest to lay out arguments for the purpose of illuminating an issue.
And avoiding the accusation of bias has value to those considering your argument.
It can all serve honesty & understanding.

 

[Mister Emu]

Can you ever get a presentation of all sides?

Now you are going to limit me to reasonable standards huh? No fun at all.

As much as possible given constraints of resources. And certainly more than a "this is what is right, and don't worry about anything else".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Now you are going to limit me to reasonable standards huh? No fun at all.

As much as possible given constraints of resources. And certainly more than a "this is what is right, and don't worry about anything else".

*laughs*
Cool. To be honest, I knew what you meant. But I always worry about the children reading along at home. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is not dishonest to lay out arguments for the purpose of illuminating an issue.

Correct. It's not. I meant specifically laying out both sides for the purposes of avoiding a claim of bias.

And avoiding the accusation of bias has value to those considering your argument.
It can all serve honesty & understanding.

Methinks you are being contrarian...
But, to clarify what I meant, since a quick reread tells me I skipped a few steps, and was probably needlessly simplistic;

It's entirely possible to present both sides of an issue as a means of promoting good discussion and examination of an issue, and then reach a conclusion at article end (for example). That isn't intellectually dishonest.

It's also possible to present the opposing side of a position purely as a means of appearing unbiased, or equal, and without any objective examination occurring at all. In this, one is presenting a single position or argument, and presenting the opposing side not to directly address or refute their points, but to make it appear that the article serves both sides equally, is balanced, and has reached a considered conclusion. That is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct. It's not. I meant specifically laying out both sides for the purposes of avoiding a claim of bias.



Methinks you are being contrarian...
But, to clarify what I meant, since a quick reread tells me I skipped a few steps, and was probably needlessly simplistic;

It's entirely possible to present both sides of an issue as a means of promoting good discussion and examination of an issue, and then reach a conclusion at article end (for example). That isn't intellectually dishonest.

Then we don't disagree.

It's also possible to present the opposing side of a position purely as a means of appearing unbiased, or equal, and without any objective examination occurring at all. In this, one is presenting a single position or argument, and presenting the opposing side not to directly address or refute their points, but to make it appear that the article serves both sides equally, is balanced, and has reached a considered conclusion. That is intellectually dishonest.

OK.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say they should metaphorically shrug, but they shouldn't be taking a side.

Of course they should take a side: they should be on the side of the truth.

It's one thing if they're reporting on a values issue where different people can legitimately have different points of view, but on factual matters, if one side is in accordance with the facts and the other isn't, there's no obligation to give the other side air time.

If it's an issue where the audience might not know that the other side is wrong, it might be appropriate to explain why they are, but on settled facts, there's no obligation to even acknowledge a meritless dissenting view.