why so one-sided?

people may wonder why this blog, or for that matter, any blog, or other forms of verbal (written or spoken) content by human beings is so one-sided and biased. i have a very simple explanation for that: i am a human being, and we human beings, by nature, are one-sided and biased. a person cannot really hold two contradictory opinions at once; if someone does, then they do not really have an opinion, since they cannot make up their mind, and therefore they are not really ready to say much of anything coherent on the issue they are ambivalent about. in order to talk coherently about something, you have to understand it to at least the point where you have formed an opinion on it. we human beings are, by nature, fallible, and none of our opinions is ever infallible or unquestionable. so does this mean, opinions are worthless, and nobody should waste their time spouting their opinions, or reading or listening to other people’s opinions? no!

opinions are the product of human intuition (which we have because we are complex biological organisms). computers cannot form opinions on their own; they can only use logic and deal with facts, which is quite limiting, in terms of their ability to reason about complicated topics where not all of the information is known. human intuition, unlike the mechanical deterministic logic that computers do, is nondeterministic, and there are multiple possible outcomes for what decision a person might make. on the other hand, everything a computer does is completely predetermined ahead of time, if you do not allow any nondeterministic user input to muck things up. so even the smartest person has some probability of arriving at an incorrect opinion, even after thinking things through a lot, because opinions are quite different from facts.

thus, you have this blog, among other things. you may disagree with things i say sometimes, which is entirely natural and appropriate. obviously, i feel that my point of view is much closer to the truth than the point of view of anyone who disagrees with me, if we are just talking about a single issue. like gay marriage. i think there is nothing wrong with it and it is not a threat to anybody so it should be legal. and if you disagree with me, i think you are wrong and totally out of touch with reality. you may disagree with me on that or any other specific issue i have addressed. and obviously, since i am a fallible human, i am almost certainly wrong about a certain percentage of things i have opinions on, just like everybody else. so the probability i am right about all of the things i have opinions on is minutely small, even if you assume i have a 95% chance of being right on any given particular issue, since there are so many issues i have opinions on. but i think the most important thing is what is the most likely percentage of issues on which i am correct, i.e., closest to the truth? i think that for me, this percentage is much higher than for most people. but, then again, this is simply the bias of the ego, and my thinking on this is typical.

so, let us say you disagree with me about religion, or about israel, or about men and women, or about which political party to support (if any), or about any other subject. you may, at times, strongly disagree with some of what i say, and perhaps it may make you angry or think i am an idiot or crazy or something. these are, of course, emotional responses, precipitated by the fact that you have different biases than i do, and our points of view are mutually incompatible. ultimately, of course, most such disagreements on matters of opinion are actually based, in part, on a disagreement about fundamental facts. therefore, if humanity were able to establish an unquestionably objective source of information, which everyone universally agreed was factual and correct, most of these disagreements would be resolved with one side conceding it is wrong, and agreeing with the other side. i, for one, am intellectually honest, meaning, if i realize that i am incorrect about something, i am actually willing to admit to being incorrect, rather than continuing to defend a position which i actually know is wrong. so, under normal circumstances, i only advocate a position i agree with, unless i am doing a satire/parody such as what stephen colbert does, or the famous short essay “a modest proposal” by jonathan swift. but when i am writing satirically, i try to make this as obvious as possible, so that only a blithering idiot could miss it. this is also quite similar to my honesty. i am a very honest person, except when i lie. but when i lie, i tell completely ridiculous, outrageous lies, ones that are so obviously false, nobody would ever believe them. and then if someone says i am lying, i am honest, and immediately admit to it; i do not continue lying at all after that point. if someone does not get it that i am lying, i continue, with lies that are more and more outrageous, until they get the point.

my ultimate concern, though, is for the truth. i believe the truth is too often overlooked or ignored or even outright contradicted by people, because it is too inconvenient for them to deal with. reality is a very unforgiving thing, and the truth does not change because we wish it to. the truth does not change to match our opinions if we get too far off base. but i think, there are very many people in this world who have long ago abandoned the truth, and gotten very far off into never-never land. and when i discuss issues, whether i am direct and honest, or use satire to show the absurdity of another point of view, it is all for this one purpose, to help people get a better sense of the truth, a better sense of reality. i am not sure if this endeavor makes me have a better understanding of reality, since perhaps i may simply reinforce my own bias, but i am certain it is helpful to those whose bias conflicts with mine. when you read something you disagree with, it makes you think a lot more than something you agree with. you look through it, try to pick holes in the arguments to refute them. it helps you develop critical thinking skills. so even if i were wrong about everything, this blog would still be a useful thing for people to read to help understand reality a little better, since by deconstructing my bias, they would also be deconstructing their own bias too. i often find it rewarding to read things written by people i strongly disagree with. it helps me keep a handle on reality and not go overboard with my bias. if i simply read stuff by people who agree with me, it would not help very much with this. that is why i like reading the huffington post much better than the daily kos, because the huffington post is full of conflicting opinions and bitter arguments, while in the daily kos, pretty much everyone agrees on most things. nobody gets banned from the huffington post for having unpopular opinions, which is why i love to read it. but i never post on it, or on other sites like that. i think having this one blog is enough. there are enough people out there who agree with me that are already arguing in favor of what i believe in, that i am really not all that necessary, although every bit helps, in shaping public opinion. and why am i so concerned with shaping public opinion? because i believe the public is completely misinformed about a great deal of things, and it requires a lot of effort from a lot of people to change that and help humanity become more realistic and stop having so many people off in never-never land, believing things that are untrue.

like for example, saddam hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. there is no such thing as ghosts. there is a rational scientific explanation for every ufo ever seen in the sky, and none of those rational explanations involve space aliens, because they simply live too far away, according to the drake equation. raising the minimum wage means a higher standard of living for the vast majority of people. tax cuts do not increase government revenue, they decrease it. global terrorist networks cannot be defeated through unilateral wars; in fact, unilateral wars are almost guaranteed to strengthen them, because worldwide cooperation is needed to defeat terrorists, and unilateralism undermines global cooperation more than anything else can. the scientific theories of evolution and global warming have both been proven, and there is not any dispute about this in the mainstream scientific community. although jesus christ preached a message of peace, christians later became warlike and used violence and intimidation to force everyone to be christian, by burning heretics and “witches”, and sending missionaries to accompany colonial conquerors in subjugating the peoples of most of the world outside europe. these are all simple truths, but so many people out there are misinformed about them. if a person’s religion is almost entirely determined by the religion of their parents and what country they live in, what basis does someone have for claiming that the religion they were raised with is correct, and the religion somebody else was raised with is incorrect? or, more importantly, what is the basis for the claim that people of one religion go to heaven while those of another go to hell, given these demographic facts about how your parents and what country you are in are the primary factors determining your religion? how can mel gibson claim that only roman catholics get into heaven, and that his own wife, a protestant who he admits is a good person, is nevertheless going to be damned to hell for all eternity? people need to think about things a little more carefully, and not cavalierly assume that they are right, without even making sure that their beliefs are not self-contradictory or in contradiction of the facts. as i said, i for one make no claims of infallibility, and i wish nobody else would make such claims either, because it is absolutely ridiculous.

still, i will continue to express my opinions despite the fact i know they cannot all possibly correct, because of the statistical improbability of such an outcome. i hope people will continue to read what i write here, despite the fact that, statistically speaking, it is almost certain that i will get things wrong from time to time. i do try to hold myself to a higher standard than most other people hold themselves to, in terms of thinking about things thoroughly and evaluating all possibilities as impartially as possible. but despite it all, my bias remains, because to be human is to have bias. which is why the idea of having a mainstream media which is unbiased, or a centrist political affiliation which is unbiased, is completely laughable. any attempt to eradicate bias will simply succeed in covering it up and making it harder to see directly, but it will still be there, stronger than ever. i believe people ought to admit to being biased, and not try to hide it, because that is the only intellectually honest approach. thus, i think most news anchors are intellectually dishonest, because, in pretending not to have bias, or hiding their bias, they subvert the ability of the public to evaluate the validity of what they say, in the full context of knowing what the speaker’s bias is. i applaud the new trend of how some journalists like lou dobbs are abandoning the pretense of impartiality, and are showing their cards, so we no longer have to wonder at what they really think. now obviously, journalists should never abandon their regard for the truth, as pundits like bill o’reilly and rush limbaugh have done. for a real journalist, truth is paramount, and trumps opinion. but without knowing the reporter’s opinion, the audience is not getting the full story, and something is missing; the viewer cannot put things in their proper context. i think this is really one of the main factors behind the public being so misinformed. but i cannot misinform you on this blog, because it is obvious that i am one-sided and you are not seeing the other side of the story here, so if you consider everything i say within that context, you can never go wrong. although, of course, it is self-evident that my point of view is indeed correct, and my side of the story is closest to the truth. that is, if you agree with me, which i personally believe would be a good idea.