'Confirmation Bias' is another underhanded tactic pseudoskeptics like to use to try to explain the reason why psychics 'feel' what they do.
You have a feeling/theory which is either borne out or influenced by experience...so? Should we say the theory never happened or the experience never happened? they just seemed to co-relate and reinforce each other, that's all.
The alternative is the 'argumentum ad populum' world that pseudoskeptics live in, where they cannot even have a single idea, notion or theory unless it's a child of their religion called 'science' or has already been thought about by a much proficient and more highly skilled pseudoskeptic.
So, when is something just 'confirmation' which leads us to explore on from that, discovering new methods and possibilities...or 'confirmation bias' which only leads us to dismiss that confirmation as a kind of 'I knew it would happen anyway, ergo it didn't happen'?
This 'confirmation bias' is a whole load of codswallop...and it's more of a 'you are either with US or with THEM' argument that stupid pseudoskeptics use to further annoy people.Statistics: Posted by The Necromancer — 09 Nov 2015, 04:06
]]>