Systematic bias: Difference between revisions
what it is, why it's not systemic bias, how it's been addressed
(what it is, what it gives rise to) |
(what it is, why it's not systemic bias, how it's been addressed) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias. | [[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias. | ||
This is such a serious problem that some very respected thinkers have concluded that only a separation of [[w:epistemic community]] by [[value system]] can be effective in creating "objective" categories. The most famous examples being the burning of "pagan" texts by Christians, the development by Marxists and some syndicalists of a "working class" specific education system, various social and alternate histories from feminism, and recently and less famously the [[w:Islamization of knowledge]] proposed by the Palestinian Ismail al-Faruqi. In all these cases, people sharing a value system would be expected to share ethical principles as well, and those would guide their categorizations - this seems obvious for ethics and law, but is it also true for ''all'' facts? | |||
There are over one thousand librarian-created categorization schemes in the largest collections of these. This suggests strongly that there is no single hierarchy of classification of knowledge, and that each means of agreeing on a single hierarchy is probably itself evidence of yet another systematic bias. | |||