Evaluating for Sources of Bias and Logical Fallacies

As writers, we have to acknowledge our own sources of bias. It is our job to give our readers the information they need to think critically and come up with their own point of view. As researchers, we have to acknowledge that human beings' methods, and sometimes their motives, are fallible. Some bias creeps through no matter what.

Even scientists with tremendous integrity and dedication to objectivity may miss something because their culture blinds them to it. Even photographers who point their cameras and produce true to life images may leave something out of frame. So much more so when we are dealing with disciplines that involve a lot of interpretation and opinion, and rely on measurements and records with less than perfect precision and accuracy.

Whenever you look at a potential research resource, whether primary or secondary, you must view it with an eye to its potential sources of bias.

• political or financial conflict of interest
• religious, cultural, or ideological prejudices
• personal prejudices and conflicts of interest
• less obvious: personal, cultural, or academic/disciplinary blind-spots

• jargon, catch-phrases
• reasoning from authority
• weasel words
• circular reasoning, begging the question
• faulty generalization
• testimonials and anecdotes instead of evidence
• straw man
• ad hominem
• false dichotomy, false dilemma
• slippery slope
• "you just don't understand because you haven't experienced it/are too skeptical"
• appeal to emotions, whether positive or negative