Confirmation Bias

'Confirmation bias' is one of those terms fashionable among political commentators who have never acquired meaningful knowledge. They invoke it as if they were umpires of the political battleground, sitting pompously on their high chairs, feigning impartiality; or psychics who sincerely and pathetically believe their vague, generic statements to be profound.

Does the term actually add anything to the conversation? It never seems to be more than an epithet, an accusation. Every side tends to accuse the other of interpreting events in a way that affirms their worldview. Intelligent people perceive this problem in themselves and try to guard against it; for intelligent people recognise that doubt is more useful than certainty. 

Everyone has biases, prejudices, belief systems. This is not in the slightest bit revelatory (and indeed neither is it a bad thing). We moderns keep rediscovering things and giving it a pseudoscientific name as if we actually discovered it.

But what annoys me more is how the idea is used to dismiss certain beliefs. Look at those ideologues and extremists, they say, who are always seeking confirmation of their biases; we, the sensible rational people, always approach facts with reason and logic. 

Just because I find confirmations of my beliefs and my prejudices in a great many diverse places does not mean I am 'biased'. It may mean I'm right.