by Elias LV
Articles that take a specific position are often seen as less objective than articles that strive for the center. This is a flaw. It's based off of the golden mean fallacy, wherein one assumes that the truth on any given dispute lies exactly between the two opposing sides. Take gun control, for instance: if an article cites figures which make a ban on assault rifles seem like a good idea, it'll be discounted as partisan or biased, even if it reports only facts. Sometimes, facts can make their own conclusions, and that conclusion isn't always between two opposing sides. Is there any reason that it should be? Yet, the running standard for 'objectivity' in an article is that it doesn't favor one side.
This is a terrible mistake. Sometimes, reality truly does favor one side over another, and an objective analysis will lead to a conclusion that may be considered 'partisan,' and which may be needlessly dismissed as being 'biased.' A simple example is that of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. The truth is that intelligent design has no validity at all as a scientific theory, despite what non-scientists will say. The vast majority of all evidence points to evolution as the culprit behind biological diversity. This evidence includes vast genetic data, fossil records, and physiological evidence in many species. If you doubt this, read any book on evolution by a competent biologist. It tends to be books written by non-scientists and theologians that favor intelligent design. Even if evolution is wrong, if the claims by proponents of 'irreducible complexity' are true, a single deityal designer is still not a logical explanation. Any being complex enough to design these 'irreducibly complex' mechanisms must be orders of magnitude greater in complexity than the mechanism itself. How can such a being exist without out a more complex being to have created it? Intelligent Design is wrong. Evolution, to the best of our knowledge, is the source of biological diversity in the world.
But that's not the point. The point is, that in many cases, reality favors one side above another.
Why should any written piece supporting one stance over another be written off as an 'editorial?' What if it cites evidence that fantastically proves the point it's trying to make? Why should anyone believe that such a piece is biased simply because it supports one side above another? Paying lip-service to both sides when they aren't equally expressive of reality is a disservice not only to the pursuit of truth, but also to anyone who may happen to be listening.
If you disagree with me, you're probably wrong.
(Published in Issue 1)
No comments:
Post a Comment