It is a common experience for me now, in political discussions, to come up against a wall at some point. The arguments run their course, the ebb and flow of intellectual battle sways from side to side, but then my opponent throws up his arms and says – “you are just biased. You just look for confirmation of your world view in everything”. To an Objectivist this kind of sentence should seem ripe for analysis. Let us preceed to analyse it.

First, the definition of bias. According to the Cambridge dictionary, bias is “the action of supporting or opposing a particular person or thing in an unfair way, because of allowing personal opinions to influence your judgement”. This is quite accurate, but I think an explanation of what exactly is meant by “unfair” is required here. To support or oppose an argument in an “unfair” way means to evade or misinterperet some evidence that actually goes against your own position. The only way one can be “unfair” in the search for the truth is to go out of your way to avoid some aspect of the truth, and that is what is required to be biased. However, bias is an accusation aimed at the psychological perspective of a person, and psychological perspectives are very hard things to prove. One cannot claim anyone who misses any amount of evidence is “biased” – it is perfectly possible to do such a thing innocently.

How can the word ‘bias’ be accurately used? The first requirement is for the accuser to point out what evidence the supposedly biased person has evaded or misinterpreted. One would have to point at facts of reality the person is missing as the primary, and then, if that kind of evasion is common practice for the person, one can speculate that the reason for the evasion is bias. To achieve certainty that bias is the cause of a multitude of evasions, one would have to know the person and his arguments very well.

Now, onto the bias fallacy. This fallacy is the act of accusing someone of bias simply due to the consistency of their world view. It amounts to the claim: ‘Since you are so uncompromising in your opinions, you must be wrong’. For example: to say to a Socialist, ‘you view everything as a struggle between the rich and poor, and you always blame the rich. You are biased’, is invalid, at least in a vacuum. When you have a solid knowledge of the history of socialism, its philosophical arguments, and the history of capitalism and its philosopical arguments, you can speculate that most socialists in the modern world are biased, since the evidence is so overwhelmingly against socialism. But in an argument with a socialist individual, you have to point to the specific evidence as the primary before throwing out accusations of bias.

The ‘bias fallacy’ is essentially an attack on certainty. As is so common in today’s world, practitioners of this fallacy (whether explicitly or implicitly) view certainty as impossible, and as such regard anyone with firm beliefs – especially consistent, integrated beliefs – as ‘biased’ on the face of it. The essence of intellectuality to them is prostrating oneself before reality, cautiously positing a few out of context, smart-sounding theories and opinions, all the while worshiping the impossibility of ever truly knowing anything of actual value. This is the kind of person who proclaims with confident certainty the importance of helping the poor, the sick, and the trees, while flirting with subjectivism and moral nihilism during discussions at a party.

The only answer to these people is to attack their ideas at the root. Tell them how any amount of knowledge – even the knowledge that something might be true – requires objectivity to be achievable, and implies the possiblity of certainty on almost any topic one can think of. If they do not accept this argument, walk away – there is no use arguing with a man who proclaims himself deaf, dumb and blind.