JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate => The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on May 20, 2026, 08:54:01 PM
-
This is a request for people who might have had some success in recognizing their own confirmation biases and have perhaps had some success in trying to eliminate them when they become a problem. I am guessing that Lance might have some experience (from his career as a lawyer) along these lines and might have some suggestions for eliminating or reducing it.
Currently I am struggling with my own confirmation bias regarding a disciplinary committee investigation that I am leading for a club I have been associated with and a member of for almost all of my 72 years on earth. After often finding myself doing internal 180-degree turnarounds with my assessments of the evidence for a while, it finally dawned on me that my confirmation bias had started me out searching for evidence that tended to show guilt and discounting other evidence that tended to give the other member a defensible position. Once I realized this bias of mine, I began to look at the investigation differently (and I believe more properly). I believe the realization came about as a result of trying to understand my own assessment flip flops.
Anyway, I believe this is also somewhat similar to the what can happen to the biases I see regularly in the JFKA discussions online. So this post isn’t off-topic in my opinion. If we can have a reasonable discussion about this, it might even help some of us avoid a lot of problems in our quests for some answers to the controversy that is the JFKA.
Please respond if you have some constructive ideas or similar experiences. Thanks.
-
I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.
I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.
The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.
-
I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.
I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.
The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.
Thank you John. I think that many of the people that “can’t figure it out” haven’t studied the evidence with an open mind. (Which is what I was doing at first with the investigation at the club.) And some of the people who “can’t figure it out” haven’t really studied the evidence at all.
-
I have a bias toward the truth, which means I let the evidence tell me what happened. That approach requires one to be able to weigh evidence for probative value, because in some instances, the evidence is conflicting. For example, we have a large group of earwitnesses who thought the shots all came from the GK and another large group that thought all the shots came from the TSBD. Unless one wants to accept the ridiculous proposition that the GK earwitnesses couldn't hear the TSBD shots and the TSBD earwitnesses couldn't hear the GK shots, the only conclusion is that one of those groups has to be wrong. It is theoretically possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible both could be right. So how should we determine which group got it right. It's very simple. You let other forms of evidence tell us which group got it right. We have eyewitnesses who SAW a gunman firing from the TSBD and pointed out the window they saw him at. There were no eyewitnesses to a GK gunman. Spent shells were found by the window the eyewitnesses pointed out and a rifle was found elsewhere on the sixth floor that was positively matched to both the spent shells found by the window and the only two recovered bullets. This additional evidence makes it a very easy call as to where the shots came from.
I have been on both sides of the conspiracy question at different times in my life. I would be more than happy to admit there was a conspiracy to kill JFK if somebody could provide any compelling evidence of such. I have challenged CTs for over 3 decades to provide me with credible evidence that someone other than Oswald was complicit in the crime. I have begged them for such evidence. Every time I do, I get a dial tone. After six decades it's safe to say there is no such evidence. It would be totally unrealistic to expect new evidence to show up now given that an army of researchers has looked in vain for such evidence for six decades.
The time to be open minded about the possibility Oswald could be innocent expired a long time ago. There is zero doubt he fired the shots that killed JFK. Anyone who can't accept that is only fooling themselves. If that means I have a confirmation bias, so be it. There is a theoretical possibility that Oswald fired the shots but had accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The likelihood of that being the case comes down to how many zeros there should be to the right of the decimal point. If I were the oddsmaker on that question, I would say that there is about a .001% chance that is the case. If that makes me closed minded, I am very comfortable with that. I know who killed JFK and it baffles me how so many people can't figure it out.
I don't understand how you can say you were on both sides - that is, you were once a conspiracy believer - and then say you are "baffled that so many people can't figure it out." You can't remember what led you to the conspiracy side?
I too was a conspiracist but clearly remember what led me to that conclusion. So I can understand why others make the same mistakes I did. E.g., the SBT, timing of the shots, Zapruder film and JFK's reaction. I can add that I had a belief that history can't be changed so easily and that great events need a great cause. And Oswald with a $20 rifle could not be that cause. Now I know that even a nobody like Oswald can alter history by himself.
-
A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. :D :D :D
Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."
I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.
The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."
That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.
The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.
I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.
-
GC:
Chess playing is an interesting past time...as you must think along the lines what your opponent will do.
Try to see it from the other side.
Try to construct an argument from the "other side," in the role of a prosecuting or defense lawyer.
As an adult, maybe the option of joining debate teams (which they have in schools) is not possible, but that is another good exercise.
I see constant and heavy bias in both JFKA CT and LNT groups.
And yes, I agree with John Corbett, I am seduced by no comforting falsehoods ever, and stand like a righteous pillar for truth, justice and omniscient conclusions.
-
A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. :D :D :D
Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."
I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.
The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."
That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.
The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.
I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.
Thank you very much Lance. That’s the type of response I was hoping for. And you said some things that are very helpful.
-
GC:
Chess playing is an interesting past time...as you must think along the lines what your opponent will do.
Try to see it from the other side.
Try to construct an argument from the "other side," in the role of a prosecuting or defense lawyer.
As an adult, maybe the option of joining debate teams (which they have in schools) is not possible, but that is another good exercise.
I see constant and heavy bias in both JFKA CT and LNT groups.
And yes, I agree with John Corbett, I am seduced by no comforting falsehoods ever, and stand like a righteous pillar for truth, justice and omniscient conclusions.
Thanks Benjamin. Those are some helpful suggestions.
-
I don't understand how you can say you were on both sides - that is, you were once a conspiracy believer - and then say you are "baffled that so many people can't figure it out." You can't remember what led you to the conspiracy side?
I too was a conspiracist but clearly remember what led me to that conclusion. So I can understand why others make the same mistakes I did. E.g., the SBT, timing of the shots, Zapruder film and JFK's reaction. I can add that I had a belief that history can't be changed so easily and that great events need a great cause. And Oswald with a $20 rifle could not be that cause. Now I know that even a nobody like Oswald can alter history by himself.
I was a CT before I ever studied the case in detail. When I did, I soon came to the conclusion that the conspiracy talk was nonsense. My belief in conspiracy was based on my own ignorance, not any credible evidence of such. There were two things that led me over to the CT side. One was the HSCA claim that there was probably a fourth shot from the GK which would indicate a conspiracy. The other was a TV documentary by investigative reporter Jack Anderson who at the time was held in high regard. His theory was that the assassination was a collaboration between the Mafia and the CIA. Both wanted to get rid Castro because Havana had been a cash cow for organized crime prior to Castro taking over and the CIA was upset about the JFK administration's promise not to invade Cuba as a condition for ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. When I started to look at the evidence in detail, it didn't take me long to figure out Andersons's theory and all other conspiracy theories were crap. I didn't read this at the time but I agree with this quote from Wikipedia regaridning Anderson's documentary
"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Daily called the program "limp" and said Anderson's conclusion that organized crime was responsible for the assassination was based "on circumstantial evidence and the word of dead gangster Johnny Roselli."[34] Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "tawdry and strident" and said Anderson's "so-called evidence was unclear, unconvincing and untrustworthy."[33] The Deseret News said Anderson was trying to "rewrite history".
That documentary came out in 1988 but when Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991, I was firmly back in the LN camp so I wasn't a CT for long. My recollection was that the Anderson documentary had comee out earlier in the 1980s so I thought I had been a CT for longer than I actually was.
-
A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. :D :D :D
Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."
I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.
The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."
That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.
The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.
I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.
I don't think my absolute conviction that Oswald was the assassin is in anyway a character flaw. It is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. There are some things worth being open minded about. The existence of a Supreme Being. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. But not the possibility of Oswald's innocence. That does not exist. I am proud to be closed minded about that.
I will confess to having a lack of humility. If it weren't for that character flaw, I'd be perfect.
-
I was a CT before I ever studied the case in detail. When I did, I soon came to the conclusion that the conspiracy talk was nonsense. My belief in conspiracy was based on my own ignorance, not any credible evidence of such. There were two things that led me over to the CT side. One was the HSCA claim that there was probably a fourth shot from the GK which would indicate a conspiracy. The other was a TV documentary by investigative reporter Jack Anderson who at the time was held in high regard. His theory was that the assassination was a collaboration between the Mafia and the CIA. Both wanted to get rid Castro because Havana had been a cash cow for organized crime prior to Castro taking over and the CIA was upset about the JFK administration's promise not to invade Cuba as a condition for ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. When I started to look at the evidence in detail, it didn't take me long to figure out Andersons's theory and all other conspiracy theories were crap. I didn't read this at the time but I agree with this quote from Wikipedia regaridning Anderson's documentary
"Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Daily called the program "limp" and said Anderson's conclusion that organized crime was responsible for the assassination was based "on circumstantial evidence and the word of dead gangster Johnny Roselli."[34] Howard Rosenberg of the Los Angeles Times wrote that it was "tawdry and strident" and said Anderson's "so-called evidence was unclear, unconvincing and untrustworthy."[33] The Deseret News said Anderson was trying to "rewrite history".
That documentary came out in 1988 but when Oliver Stone's movie came out in 1991, I was firmly back in the LN camp so I wasn't a CT for long. My recollection was that the Anderson documentary had comee out earlier in the 1980s so I thought I had been a CT for longer than I actually was.
Yes, ignorance is often a huge factor. Some of the long-time club members I am dealing with are so upset at the situation that they adamantly refuse to even consider looking at the defendant”s presentation of their side of the issue. It is extremely frustrating to me for them to be like that.
-
A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. :D :D :D
Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."
I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.
The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."
That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.
The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.
I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.
Lance, it currently looks like the three members (including me) of our Disciplinary Committee may not be able to reach a unanimous decision. I am not trying to compare our committee to the Supreme Court. But I was reading how they operate and have a question I am hoping you might be able to explain to me. I can grasp most of the different opinions (majority, dissenting, & concurring) the Supreme Court can issue. But this last one is proving to be difficult for me.
“Fractured Decisions: Sometimes no single rationale commands a majority of the Court. In these rare "plurality" decisions, the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.”
I just need a little help understanding what that means. Please give it a try if you are interested. Thanks.
-
My understanding is that in a plurality decision a majority of the judges agrees on what the final outcome should be, but not why. So they may write separate opinions as to why they agree with the result but explain their different reasons why they think that should be the result. (There may also be dissenting opinions, but those are not part of the plurality.) No single rationale commands a majority of the judges, so this is why it is not a majority decision. The statement "the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds" is new to me but seems to be correct. For example, a judge who thinks the case should be decided on some procedural technicality would be stating a "narrower ground" than one who thinks it should be decided on some evidential issue.
With a three-member disciplinaty panel, a plurality decision would require at least two of you to agree what the result should be (e.g., suspend the member for 30 days) but not necessarily why. Since you aren't concerned with the precedential value or "narrowest ground" of your decision, you don't have the same concerns as a court. Perhaps your club rules don't even require you to explain your reasoning - just issue a decision. If they require a unanimous decision, then three votes for the same result would satisfy that even though all three members had different reasoning. If they simply require a majority vote, then two votes would satisfy that even though the two members disagree on the reasoning. If the three panel members voted for exoneration, a 30-day suspension and a 60-day suspension, you'd have nothing and would have to hash it out.
-
My understanding is that in a plurality decision a majority of the judges agrees on what the final outcome should be, but not why. So they may write separate opinions as to why they agree with the result but explain their different reasons why they think that should be the result. (There may also be dissenting opinions, but those are not part of the plurality.) No single rationale commands a majority of the judges, so this is why it is not a majority decision. The statement "the controlling precedent is determined by the opinion that concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds" is new to me but seems to be correct. For example, a judge who thinks the case should be decided on some procedural technicality would be stating a "narrower ground" than one who thinks it should be decided on some evidential issue.
With a three-member disciplinaty panel, a plurality decision would require at least two of you to agree what the result should be (e.g., suspend the member for 30 days) but not necessarily why. Since you aren't concerned with the precedential value or "narrowest ground" of your decision, you don't have the same concerns as a court. Perhaps your club rules don't even require you to explain your reasoning - just issue a decision. If they require a unanimous decision, then three votes for the same result would satisfy that even though all three members had different reasoning. If they simply require a majority vote, then two votes would satisfy that even though the two members disagree on the reasoning. If the three panel members voted for exoneration, a 30-day suspension and a 60-day suspension, you'd have nothing and would have to hash it out.
Thanks Lance, this situation is more complex and convoluted than anything I could have ever imagined. And there is potentially huge stakes at risk for both sides (if it ever ended up in a court of law where I believe the club would easily loose). I re-wrote the original 1958 bylaws in the late 1980’s. They are and have always been based on Robert’s Rules of Order. What is in the bylaws simply says the report of resolutions is to be signed by every committee member who agrees. We are still at the investigation stage. I am trying to nip things in the bud by reporting that no further action is warranted and eliminating the need for any trial or need for a report of resolutions. But I am encountering loads of resistance due to so much animosity that currently exists. I have quickly become a “bad guy”. It is a colossal nightmarish fiasco.
-
I don't think my absolute conviction that Oswald was the assassin is in anyway a character flaw. It is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. There are some things worth being open minded about. The existence of a Supreme Being. The existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos. But not the possibility of Oswald's innocence. That does not exist. I am proud to be closed minded about that.
I will confess to having a lack of humility. If it weren't for that character flaw, I'd be perfect.
I will pick on John one more time just for fun.
I've previously stated on other threads that John's posts often remind me of my extensive interactions with internet atheists who haunt religion forums.
The ploy of internet atheists is that religious believers are victims of their confirmation biases - indeed, that religious belief is just one big delusion driven by confirmation biases - but that atheists are entirely rational, evidence-driven, critical thinkers, free of any and all confirmation biases.
"My only confirmation bias is toward the truth" could be right out of the mouth of an internet atheist. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with these folks - and all other species of debunkers across all the areas of weirdness in which I have been involved - because evidence simply isn't evidence at all (or at least isn't "credible" or "extraordinary") unless these folks decide it is (and they never do). They get to determine the standard, you see, because they are entirely rational, evidence-driven, critical thinkers while you are hopelessly in the grip of your confirmation biases and wishful thinking.
This is, of course, absurd. Atheists typically are drowning in confirmation biases, at least to the extent of the typical believer. It's their refusal to acknowledge this that stifles discussion. A believer who says "damn right I'd like there to be a benevolent deity and a blissful afterlife" - i.e., who is aware of his own confirmation biases - is far ahead of an atheist or other species of debunker who deludes himself that he doesn't have any such biases.
Thomas Nagel is both a very serious philosopher and an atheist (author of the groundbreaking epistemological paper "What is it like to be a bat?"). He famously admitted his confirmation biases:
"I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time."
One of my pet subjects, as you can tell. I am reminded of my debates with internet atheists - which I enjoyed, up to a point - every time I read John's cocksure posts.
(You folks need a break. Here is "What is it like to be a bat?" - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf)
-
I will pick on John one more time just for fun.
I've previously stated on other threads that John's posts often remind me of my extensive interactions with internet atheists who haunt religion forums.
The ploy of internet atheists is that religious believers are victims of their confirmation biases - indeed, that religious belief is just one big delusion driven by confirmation biases - but that atheists are entirely rational, evidence-driven, critical thinkers, free of any and all confirmation biases.
"My only confirmation bias is toward the truth" could be right out of the mouth of an internet atheist. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with these folks - and all other species of debunkers across all the areas of weirdness in which I have been involved - because evidence simply isn't evidence at all (or at least isn't "credible" or "extraordinary") unless these folks decide it is (and they never do). They get to determine the standard, you see, because they are entirely rational, evidence-driven, critical thinkers while you are hopelessly in the grip of your confirmation biases and wishful thinking.
This is, of course, absurd. Atheists typically are drowning in confirmation biases, at least to the extent of the typical believer. It's their refusal to acknowledge this that stifles discussion. A believer who says "damn right I'd like there to be a benevolent deity and a blissful afterlife" - i.e., who is aware of his own confirmation biases - is far ahead of an atheist or other species of debunker who deludes himself that he doesn't have any such biases.
Thomas Nagel is both a very serious philosopher and an atheist (author of the groundbreaking epistemological paper "What is it like to be a bat?"). He famously admitted his confirmation biases:
"I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time."
One of my pet subjects, as you can tell. I am reminded of my debates with internet atheists - which I enjoyed, up to a point - every time I read John's cocksure posts.
(You folks need a break. Here is "What is it like to be a bat?" - https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf)
There is a fundamental difference between the question of the existence of a Supreme Being and the question of Oswald's innocence. One is knowable and one is not. I very much agree with Carl Sagan's observation that both believers and atheists exhibit a certainty about their positions that science does not support. He once said, I don't want to believe, I want to know. That pretty much sums up my outlook.
I don't believe Oswald was the assassin. I know Oswald was the assassin and I am not going to feign open mindedness on that question. I will leave the door open a crack for those who want to claim he was part of a conspiracy. Those who believe that need to lay their cards on the table. Show us evidence that he had accomplices. But there is zero doubt Oswald was the triggerman. Any other explanation flies in the face of a wealth of evidence.