Philosophical Vegan Forum

Often when I have talked to people about confirmation bias, I have been accused of claiming that I am immune to such things. I clarify that this isn't the case as soon as I can (usually through an unfunny sarcastic comment about how I look down upon the petty mortals whom are subject to confirmation bias.) These conversations and the video shared with us on the subject by miniboes (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BIePWBgKaXw) got me thinking about confirmation bias. I speculated to myself that one can notice when they are being subject to confirmation bias, but one cannot truly transcend it. What do you think?

Confirmation bias, unfortunately, is incredibly hard to avoid. The best way to do it, I think, might just be to look for content that is the opposite of your bias. For example, looking up arguments and studies against veganism or in favor of the paleo diet. That can be incredibly painful though.

This is what science is for.

You don't have to worry about confirmation bias if there is no conflicting evidence.
When something is determined through a properly controlled study of adequate size which is double or triple bind, with proper statistical analysis, and conducted by a reputable firm (that won't hide the results from studies that don't provide the outcome they wanted), it's extremely unlikely that it will ever be contradicted.

Usually apparent conflicts are not actual conflicts.

miniboes wrote:For example, looking up arguments and studies against veganism or in favor of the paleo diet.

Paleo is pseudoscience.
The key is for something to reach a certain standard of reputability, you aren't likely to find any (searching is probably a waste of time). It also means you can't accept non-reputable "studies" that confirm your beliefs.

Just stick to a high enough standard of evidence, and you won't have to weigh conflicting evidence because there won't be any conflicts.