So true. I always wonder why certain folk refer to themselves as "skeptics". By definition the word implies suspicion; but from what I've experienced their interpretation of the label is in fact "skeptic of views holding to anything other than materialist conclusions". In other words: evolution and a chance universe are true, and we're skeptical of anything that says otherwiseMarcusOfLycia wrote:It's basic Confirmation Bias... and I wish people would more readily admit to it happening. It's the reason I cringe when people call themselves 'open-minded' or 'skeptical'. Everyone is both of those things for their own beliefs, and neither of those things (usually) for anything else. Naturalist, Christian, etc; doesn't seem to matter for a lot of people, though there are definitely those who get better at avoiding it.
I watched a video of a Skeptics Convention hosted by PZ Myers once -- I swear I've never seen a group of more unquestioning minds, it's like they were in a secularist church and PZ was the apastor; with cheers and laughter at jokes and insults (called stupid, etc.) directed at the ID folk who raised questions.
Format, I thought it was an objection to length the length of the clip.It usually even goes beyond expecting certain conclusions. It includes only taking in information that is supportive of one's own claim. That's why it bothered me that there was a dispute over listening to the claims of a Christian group in regards to this experiment on the basis of 'format'. My natural tendency is just to assume Confirmation Bias, which might be a rush to judgment, but usually ends up being involved in people's decisions anyway.