FALLIBLE FOX

Ethics and Bias (People & Context Part 4)

​

Beyond an author's authority on the subject, we should also be concerned regarding whether the author can be trusted to deal with information ethically and in an unbiased fashion. This is a different question from that of expertise—some apparent experts have recently been noted to have done some very unethical things in their respective fields (e.g., Andrew Wakefield; Diederik Stapel). If the author is known for having done questionable work in the past, we should seriously question whether we can trust all else they've put out in to the world.

What things should we take into account? We should be making thoughtful judgments regarding whether the information we have is (a) valid and (b) valuable to our assessment of the piece. How much should it be weighted, if weighted at all—there's often no easy answer.

 

Certainly consider such things whether an author has submitted fraudulent work (consider the case of Diederik Stapel) or propagated false information that could bring serious harm to people and society (see Andrew Wakefield). Ask yourself how closely linked the past behaviour is to the focus of the work you've encountered or the practice of sharing information more generally. For instance, if there is clear evidence that the person has engaged in fraud in their field, it is doubtful that we should trust any scholarly work they've done.

​

In practice, making decisions about authors' ethics is not usually as clear cut as in cases of known fraud. Although it's hard to avoid forming opinions based on things we know or think we know about an author's personal life, we're generally most interested in professional ethics (I say generally because the line is not always so clear). Question carefully whether you're making a judgment about domain-relevant information. For instance, if you believe the author drinks too much alcohol, smoked weed in college, or posted a comment some group of people on twitter found offensive, that's very likely not a good reason to dismiss their work. Of course, depending on your personal values and the social groups with which you affiliate, you might find it very hard to read without considering such things. In such cases, however, it will pay off intellectually for you to do the hard thing: work hard to read without bias. I think there are some good resources to follow up on this difficult task at this page found at the Open Mind Library.

 

​Call yourself out when you sense you are evaluating a piece of writing for reasons that are largely irrelevant to the merits of the work. For example, you may not like the author’s personality or their writing style. You might find that you dislike them because they hold opinions that differ from your own or have done things in their personal lives that you find morally objectionable. You might even harbor biased views toward people from the author’s social group (e.g., ethnic, religious, or political). These are things we should try to be honest with ourselves about to ensure we're getting a clear view of the reading.

​

On the other hand, you may be biased toward trusting information coming from particular non-authorities because you like or respect the person or because of their group membership. The person may, for instance, be a celebrity, part of your social group, or part of an activist group that is doing things you value. When we're motivated by social pressures, we may consciously or unconsciously avoid critiquing claims, arguments, and evidence that comes from certain parties. Whatever our values may be and whoever the author is, we owe it to ourselves to hold all claims, all arguments, and all evidence to the same high standards.

​

Might author biases be seeping into the work?

 

• Keep in mind the difference between (a) clear evidence for bias in the writing and (b) characteristics or affiliations of the author that suggest possibility of bias. Take great care with your judgments here.

​

• Financial, career, and social incentives can be powerful biasing factors but clear evidence for these incentives and their links to the writing is often hard to detect.

​

• Ideologies (e.g., political or religious), public commitment to an idea, and life experiences can distort a writer's perspective. Look out for strongly stated opinions, one-sided thinking, and emotion-imbued writing.

​

Keep attuned to the difference between (a) clear evidence for bias in the writing and (b) characteristics or affiliations of the author that suggest possibility of bias. Perhaps you suspect that the author is politically invested in one side of an argument or professionally invested in research findings turning out a particular way (e.g., in support of their theory).

 

Sometimes, too, there are financial incentives at work. The author may be paid by an organization with vested interests in disseminating misinformation or they might be interested in selling something to the reader. Ask, for example, whether the piece of media is opening the door to a product created by the author (e.g., a book, film, or business). However, be extremely wary of drawing conclusions about the writing because of your perceptions of authors' circumstance, affiliation, and motive (see Ad Hominem fallacies here). It might be hard not to judge, but unless you are quite certain that something shady is going on, try to assess the claims and arguments offered rather than what could be going on behind the scenes.

 

​Going into even more uncertain territory, you may have noticed author ties suggest small possibility of bias but you have no clear evidence of bias. For instance, is the author part of the team of researchers on a scientific project discussed in the piece? While this insider's perspective can enhance the authors' understanding of the work, it can often lead them to embellish the strength of the findings or their importance.

 

Alternatively, maybe the author has had personal experience (e.g., a tragedy, an experience with discrimination) that led them to take interest in writing this piece. Is the author sponsored by a granting agency or receiving financial support in some other way—where's the money coming from? Is the writer part of an activist group for which a particular argument or finding is beneficial or damaging to their cause? Is the author writing for a publication that has a particular political slant? In many of these cases, there could be biases directing the writing, but it's not always clear. Consider critically but be aware of your uncertainty and the limits of your knowledge—what do you actually know and what is mere speculation?

 

In any case, it’s important to remember that affiliations do not necessarily motivate an author. Keep attuned to what does and does not constitute good evidence of bias in the writing. Furthermore, particular instances of bias in the writing don’t necessarily disqualify an entire piece. Good arguments and information may still be found.

​

Most critical to your assessment of bias are things about the way the piece is written rather than author circumstance and possible motives—things like clear closed-mindedness and excessive outrage. Here are some things to consider in the writing:

 

• Impartiality and openmindedness. Does the author seem to go to great lengths to seek objectivity and impartiality on the topic? Where appropriate, particularly in contested areas of study, does the author try to consider alternate perspectives in the most charitable light possible?

​

• Is the author appropriately skeptical or do they take the findings at face value, with little critique?

​

• One-sided enthusiasm. Do claims seem exaggerated or overblown? Does the author seem overly excited about the information or overly confident in a novel research finding?

​

• Is the author presenting a complex issue (e.g., transmission of disease during a pandemic) in an overly simple way?

​

• How much emotion is apparent in the tone of the piece? For instance, is the author morally outraged about someone else's ideas or research? Does it seem like anger is blinding them from seeing things clearly?