Quote:
Originally Posted by Brillopad
Let's be clear that confirmation bias works equally both ways, so you will have a bias for info that supports your views and so will I. No doubt the comments that criticised the study I presented will likely have also received criticism of its comments/criticism from elsewhere.
My point being there is always someone who will have a different view who will point out any perceived inconsistencies/bias/procedural inaccuracies etc. A study can be challenged years down the line when new info or ideas come to light - little is written in stone on things like this. It isn't like diagnosing a medical condition or stating that the world is round.
There are other studies that have expressed similar concerns - it isn't just one study. To attempt to dismiss all concerns as either racism or stupidity is just words with an agenda and worse than the worst study and achieves nothing but adding fuel to the fire.
This is a Hugh unknown area and complacency is foolhardy. At the end of the day there is no proven right or wrong - only viewpoint.
|
The results themselves are skewed, the people interviewed were only migrants from Morroco and Turkey, you cannot ignore the broad range of muslim people in Europe and make claims based on only a sample selection that isn't representative of Muslims as a whole. It'd be like interviewing a bunch of British racists and releasing a study saying that the UK as a whole is racist based on that sample. It's utter foolishness and that's why this study has been dragged through the mud.
If you think poking valid holes in a flawed study is confirmation bias then you don't understand what confirmation bias is, you can't just explain away what is an incredibly flawed study by saying that the flaws are basically a matter of opinion when they aren't. You can't also say 'there are other studies that expressed similar concerns' without actually linking them, the only study that's been presented in this topic is the one in the article and it's already been proven as flawed and unreliable.
The article is biased, inflammatory and the only figures it backs up are from a study that's easily discredited. It's a worthless clickbait article with no real merit.