Nick Cohen and Dan Hodges on "Plebgate"
Six weeks ago I published a blog post here in response to an academic study in America which found statistical evidence that even intelligent and numerate people were more likely to make mistakes which reinforced their existing prejudices. The last words of my article were as follows:
"The moral of this story is that if you are analysing a set of data and the results come out exactly with what fits your prior beliefs, you should try to check your analysis as carefully and objectively as possible to make sure you are not convincing yourself that the new evidence conveniently fits what you were already disposed to believe."
There were two interesting articles on "plebgate" published in the past few days, both by people who appear not to suffer from this kind of confirmation bias as as they are lefties who were effectively coming to the defence of a former Tory cabinet minister. One of these articles, by Nick Cohen in yesterday's Spectator, concluded with almost exactly the same words that I have repeated above. The last three paragraphs of his article, which forensically demolishes the arguments The Times has been using to attack Andrew Mitchell, are as follows
"Writing about Mitchell in last Sunday’s Observer, I said that Robert Harris, a friend of Mitchell’s, had compared his treatment to the Dreyfus affair.
Nick Cohen's article in the Spectator can be read in full at
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2014/02/why-are-rupert-murdochs-men-damning-andrew-mitchell/
Dan Hodges in the Telegraph has a similar good article on the subject which can be read at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100259366/the-times-has-not-told-the-truth-about-plebgate-nothing-has-changed/
"The moral of this story is that if you are analysing a set of data and the results come out exactly with what fits your prior beliefs, you should try to check your analysis as carefully and objectively as possible to make sure you are not convincing yourself that the new evidence conveniently fits what you were already disposed to believe."
There were two interesting articles on "plebgate" published in the past few days, both by people who appear not to suffer from this kind of confirmation bias as as they are lefties who were effectively coming to the defence of a former Tory cabinet minister. One of these articles, by Nick Cohen in yesterday's Spectator, concluded with almost exactly the same words that I have repeated above. The last three paragraphs of his article, which forensically demolishes the arguments The Times has been using to attack Andrew Mitchell, are as follows
"Writing about Mitchell in last Sunday’s Observer, I said that Robert Harris, a friend of Mitchell’s, had compared his treatment to the Dreyfus affair.
Harris is going over the top, but you can see his point. France in the 1890s had a large rightwing constituency, which wanted to believe that a spy in the French army had to be a treacherous Jew. The British left in the 2010s, and many others besides, want to believe in Tory posh boys, who will abuse the brave and honest coppers willing to put themselves in the line of fire.In other words, whatever your politics, whatever your inclinations, if you read a story that suits your prejudices perfectly, don’t believe it."
Nick Cohen's article in the Spectator can be read in full at
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2014/02/why-are-rupert-murdochs-men-damning-andrew-mitchell/
Dan Hodges in the Telegraph has a similar good article on the subject which can be read at
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100259366/the-times-has-not-told-the-truth-about-plebgate-nothing-has-changed/
Comments
pleb-gate
Quaba-gate
etc.
Watergate was the first really, but then watergate was simple the name of the building in which it happened, it didnt have any thing to do with water
It was rather a shame when they switched to calling this scandal "plebgate" rather than "gate-gate."