Bias
By Jack Don McLovin - Multidiscplinarian -- Jack Has Been writing pages a day for the past 10 years under varying anonymous accounts, always drifting from place to place trying to gain popularity in a group, and start again, and repeat.
Bias
When you say someone is bias, in scientific literature it only really comes up badly in the form of confirmation bias. When essentially the conclusion is drawn from some initial reasoning, and then every other piece of accompanying contextual information is built arround the intial conclusion and does everything in it's power to hide the truth in order to force unfair acceptance of an otherwise faulty conclusion.
For some conclusions it's built directly to oppose some other hypothesis, theory, discussion pointers, and conlusions. In someways it can be built in the form of say, science, which is made to be skeptical of the truths found in the past, and of their methods criticisms and analysis. It is built to do so through out competing fields. Particularly with science it can be used to break open ideas of religion and to throw them out. Removing the nomenclature for spirits and souls, it makes it not allowed to discuss them whilst under the purview of anyone in a competing discipline.
This is the issue with disciplines, is that they compete with one another and it's your job as a member of a discipline to limit the encroaching of the powers of the other disciplines when it interacts with yours in a costly way. These are natural-born incentive structures, when participating in a particular way.
For example, when it comes to drug use, in the Bible the word used to say don't use them is the root word for "pharmaceuticals" rather than taklng on some word for "illicit" activity. Because you should know for a fact anytime the law and a religion come into contact where they are both repeating over you sense of righteousness according to a collectivity of a group mind and sharingness.
And as opposed to there being the case for Holy Scriptures, or text's written by a human with the readers sometimes wishing to choosing for the particular books to take on an 'Ordained' title, or a text inspired by God. However, in scientific notions this becomes instantly reprehensible, because no human should be granted the title as having communicated so much better than the other humans around. Now, it purely becomes a lack of esteem given to human writers and a lack of respect granted for those who speak on behaf of a collective consciousness, or groupmind.
Bias in the form of confirmation bias, sure, isn't great, but in the overall scheme of information war, bias is almost essential and is the bare basis of what the imformation is going in to do. For example, because in science it's commonplace is to be skeptical. So when it comes to science if you have the chance to be skeptical of everything it has ever presented to you simply beause you can correct one or two things from early on in their basis of reasoning, then it becomes an imperative that you must, or you are not being a proper science.
This brings me on to my next point. Fundamentalism.
