Is There A Double Standard?

[bluegreenearth]

When reviewing various arguments from theists and non-theists, I often wonder if the people launching objections to these arguments on either side of the debate would apply the same level of skepticism towards their own arguments. Please describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where a non-theist or theist failed to apply the same level of skepticism towards their own argument as they did for the counter-argument. Alternatively, describe a real-world scenario you've experienced where the objection to an argument offered by a non-theist or theist also applied to the counter-argument but was unjustifiably ignored or dismissed.

The debate will be whether a double standard was most likely exhibited in the described scenario or not.

If a double standard was exhibited, was it justifiable and how?

[JoeyKnothead]

A particular non-theist (let's call him Joe) has published numerous posts in various subforums here demanding that theists support their claims with empirical evidence. When Joe makes a strong claim of his own, a theist demands that Joe support his claim. Joe not only fails to do so but also engages in various logical fallacies in an attempt to avoid his own epistemic standards (argument from silence, red herring, and special pleading).

Do you want names and links? Or does this suffice?

Please present such data for analysis.

Edit: Sorry for late reply, I stumbled up on the post and didnt realize how old it was.

[bluegreenearth]

I have not suggested that "neither person is in error"? In fact, it seems to be common sense to know that if we come to completely different conclusions, then at least one of us, must, and have to be in error, and it could be both. There is a tremendous difference between explaining what it is I believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, along with why I believe as I do, as opposed to insisting that I must, and have to be correct, and anyone who disagrees with me must, and has to be in error. You see, wen can "agree to disagree", but in the end we can agree that one, if not both of us is in error.

What would you suggest is a reliable method for us to discover where an error might exist?

[Realworldjack]

I have not suggested that "neither person is in error"? In fact, it seems to be common sense to know that if we come to completely different conclusions, then at least one of us, must, and have to be in error, and it could be both. There is a tremendous difference between explaining what it is I believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, along with why I believe as I do, as opposed to insisting that I must, and have to be correct, and anyone who disagrees with me must, and has to be in error. You see, wen can "agree to disagree", but in the end we can agree that one, if not both of us is in error.

What would you suggest is a reliable method for us to discover where an error might exist?

As an example, as I explain to you what it is I believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, if you can demonstrate where what I am saying would not be based upon the real, facts, and evidence we have, then we would discover my error.

[bluegreenearth]

As an example, as I explain to you what it is I believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, if you can demonstrate where what I am saying would not be based upon the real, facts, and evidence we have, then we would discover my error.

Certainly, if someone is mistaken about what the facts and evidence are, that would constitute an error. However, if the convinced Christian and convinced non-Christian have both based their beliefs on the same facts and evidence, how would you propose they could reliably determine where an error might exist?

[Realworldjack]

As an example, as I explain to you what it is I believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have, if you can demonstrate where what I am saying would not be based upon the real, facts, and evidence we have, then we would discover my error.

Certainly, if someone is mistaken about what the facts and evidence are, that would constitute an error. However, if the convinced Christian and convinced non-Christian have both based their beliefs on the same facts and evidence, how would you propose they could reliably determine where an error might exist?

There are those of us who understand that all we can do at this point, is to exchange our ideas, opinions, and beliefs, concerning the facts, and evidence we have, without assuming the other side must, and has to be influenced by some sort of bias, while there seem to be others ON BOTH SIDES, who seem to be under the impression, that if there are those who are in disagreement with the position that I have, then they must, and have to be persuaded by some sort of bias.

It would be of no surprise to me in the least, if those who hold the latter view, very well may be those who understand, recognize, and freely admit to having some sort of "confirmation bias", for something they once held dear as being true, and simply assume that all those who continue to believe as they once did, must, and has to have the same sort of bias.

[bluegreenearth]

There are those of us who understand that all we can do at this point, is to exchange our ideas, opinions, and beliefs, concerning the facts, and evidence we have, without assuming the other side must, and has to be influenced by some sort of bias, while there seem to be others ON BOTH SIDES, who seem to be under the impression, that if there are those who are in disagreement with the position that I have, then they must, and have to be persuaded by some sort of bias.

It would be of no surprise to me in the least, those who hold the latter view, very well may be those who understand, recognize, and freely admit to having some sort of "confirmation bias", for something they once held dear as being true, and simply assume that all those who continue to believe as they once did, must, and has to have the same sort of bias.

How would you propose someone could mitigate for the possibility of conscious and/or subconscious bias?

[Realworldjack]

There are those of us who understand that all we can do at this point, is to exchange our ideas, opinions, and beliefs, concerning the facts, and evidence we have, without assuming the other side must, and has to be influenced by some sort of bias, while there seem to be others ON BOTH SIDES, who seem to be under the impression, that if there are those who are in disagreement with the position that I have, then they must, and have to be persuaded by some sort of bias.

It would be of no surprise to me in the least, those who hold the latter view, very well may be those who understand, recognize, and freely admit to having some sort of "confirmation bias", for something they once held dear as being true, and simply assume that all those who continue to believe as they once did, must, and has to have the same sort of bias.

How would you propose someone could mitigate for the possibility of conscious and/or subconscious bias?

This is very simple! It is to completely acknowledge, that we are ALL PRONED, to do such a thing! To make this even stronger, we are hard wired! So then, there are those of us who completely understand what we are "PRONED", and, or, "HARD WIRED", to do, as opposed to those who simply assume it is those who are opposed to us who are "PRONED", and, or "HARD WIRED" to do such a thing.

[bluegreenearth]

This is very simple! It is to completely acknowledge, that we are ALL PRONED, to do such a thing! To make this even stronger, we are hard wired! So then, there are those of us who completely understand what we are "PRONED", and, or, "HARD WIRED", to do, as opposed to those who simply assume it is those who are opposed to us who are "PRONED", and, or "HARD WIRED" to do such a thing.

Could people acknowledge that they are prone to being consciously biased and still be subconsciously influenced by biases?

[Realworldjack]

This is very simple! It is to completely acknowledge, that we are ALL PRONED, to do such a thing! To make this even stronger, we are hard wired! So then, there are those of us who completely understand what we are "PRONED", and, or, "HARD WIRED", to do, as opposed to those who simply assume it is those who are opposed to us who are "PRONED", and, or "HARD WIRED" to do such a thing.

Could people acknowledge that they are prone to being consciously biased and still be subconsciously influenced by biases?

I would suppose that one who not only acknowledges that we as humans are "prone' to being bias, but are even, "hard wired" to do so, would have to acknowledge one can "still be subconsciously influenced by biases". What would cause me to wonder if one truly understood this to be the case, would be one who even attempts to bring this sort of thing up to another? In other words, since I understand beyond doubt that it could be me who is influenced by confirmation bias, what good would it do to point out what I THINK would be confirmation bias in another, since I fully understand it could be me who is influenced by confirmation bias? This is exactly why I stated earlier,

There are those of us who understand that all we can do at this point, is to exchange our ideas, opinions, and beliefs, concerning the facts, and evidence we have, without assuming the other side must, and has to be influenced by some sort of bias, while there seem to be others ON BOTH SIDES, who seem to be under the impression, that if there are those who are in disagreement with the position that I have, then they must, and have to be persuaded by some sort of bias.

In other words, while I understand that others could in fact be influenced by confirmation bias, it really does no good to point this out, since I also realize it could be myself. Again, if one acknowledges, and realizes that they were convinced of something they held dearly, because of confirmation bias, this may in fact cause them to believe that since they were able to change the mind, they have somehow been freed from confirmation bias. However, simply because they have changed the mind, does not in any demonstrate that the way they think has changed, and it also does not demonstrate that what they were once convinced of is indeed false.

[bluegreenearth]

This is very simple! It is to completely acknowledge, that we are ALL PRONED, to do such a thing! To make this even stronger, we are hard wired! So then, there are those of us who completely understand what we are "PRONED", and, or, "HARD WIRED", to do, as opposed to those who simply assume it is those who are opposed to us who are "PRONED", and, or "HARD WIRED" to do such a thing.

Could people acknowledge that they are prone to being consciously biased and still be subconsciously influenced by biases?

I would suppose that one who not only acknowledges that we as humans are "prone' to being bias, but are even, "hard wired" to do so, would have to acknowledge one can "still be subconsciously influenced by biases". What would cause me to wonder if one truly understood this to be the case, would be one who even attempts to bring this sort of thing up to another? In other words, since I understand beyond doubt that it could be me who is influenced by confirmation bias, what good would it do to point out what I THINK would be confirmation bias in another, since I fully understand it could be me who is influenced by confirmation bias? This is exactly why I stated earlier,

There are those of us who understand that all we can do at this point, is to exchange our ideas, opinions, and beliefs, concerning the facts, and evidence we have, without assuming the other side must, and has to be influenced by some sort of bias, while there seem to be others ON BOTH SIDES, who seem to be under the impression, that if there are those who are in disagreement with the position that I have, then they must, and have to be persuaded by some sort of bias.

In other words, while I understand that others could in fact be influenced by confirmation bias, it really does no good to point this out, since I also realize it could be myself. Again, if one acknowledges, and realizes that they were convinced of something they held dearly, because of confirmation bias, this may in fact cause them to believe that since they were able to change the mind, they have somehow been freed from confirmation bias. However, simply because they have changed the mind, does not in any demonstrate that the way they think has changed, and it also does not demonstrate that what they were once convinced of is indeed false.

Do you think people could mitigate for bias by first attempting to determine if disconfirming facts and evidence exists for their own beliefs or by considering if the available facts and evidence equally support a different belief? If people were to discover that the facts and evidence equally support a different belief, would that be a sufficient justification for them to be less biased towards their own belief?