Do you try to prevent your opinion from effecting the way you look at data/facts?

I've noticed on Yahoo Answers people's opinions drastically effect the way they interpret stats/facts. You can ask the same question in two different sections, and people will respond to the facts purely based on their own personal beliefs. Almost ignoring the facts and stats completely, or justifying them away somehow. Do you try to prevent your opinions from effecting the way you analys information? Thanks for answering!

Some examples - If you ask about aids statistics in the gay and lesbian section, everyone will say that it's a lie, and the government hates gays. If you ask about how old the planet is in the religion section, people will tell you science is trying to kill God, and that it's all a farce. Try asking about the corrolation between college graduates more often than not being Liberal in the government section and see what happens. Just examples. None of these topics are reflections of my opinion. Thanks for answering!

We all interpret information in different ways. It's natural. For instance, when the Native Americans first saw a gun, they thought that it was magic. They interpretted the information in a way that fit into thier view of the world.

As humans, we really have no other option. We are only capable of using new information by relating it to the information that we already have.

For example: We can both probably agree that Algebra is not a subject in which opinion comes in to play. It's math. It has no political view, no agenda. However, the equation y=mx+b means nothing to a 2nd grader. Why? He doesn't have the information that is crucial to understand this equation. You and I might know that this equation is a line, where x , y is a point on the line. When I see this equation, I KNOW what it means.

If I see a rainbow on the back of a car, my mind makes a similar connection. Just as looking at an algebra equation makes me think of a line, looking at the square rainbow makes me think, 'This person advocates gay rights.' If I have been taught that gay rights are 'bad', then I make a negative association. In point of fact, I was brought up to ridicule gay people. I don't believe in this viewpoint. I am bi-sexual. Still, when I see that sticker, I immediately KNOW that the person in the car is somewhat more 'gay' than I am. They WANT the label of 'gay'. Without even meeting them, I form an opinion. It's natural, no matter how unpredjudiced a person may be.

The essential problem with using statistics is that they must be used by a person. If a computer could come to conclusions about facts based on the facts themselves, and we trusted that computer, we would probably be a bit more objective.

But we are, after all, humans. And humans are subjective. We have personal truths and personal fables. As long as we have that ... well ... statistics will only reinforce.

I am rather suspect of "facts" and "stats". Too many times, facts and stats are the result of a biased "study" and tend to say exactly what someone wants to hear. The best example I can think of is drug companies who fund studies to prove their chemicals will treat such and such. They get the results they want/need to get FDA approval to put this crap into the market for consumption. Later, we learn how much damage these drugs actually do...too late for many.

Well, I don't agree with your way of putting it -- preventing my opinion from effecting how I look at facts.

If someone gives me a statement they claim as fact, and I have lots of reason to doubt it -- such as gabunches of previous facts I've encountered from reliable sources -- then it doesn't make sense to toss out all that, just because someone here says to.

People on this board make stuff up all the time, in case you hadn't noticed. And elsewhere, besides here, if something doesn't make sense given what I know, I might question it, or even reject it, or put it on hold for verification.

I've also seen people cite sources for their facts that are as reliable as narratives about talking bunnies. I mean when WeHateScience.org claims to have proven the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I'm hardly going to grab a Bible, fling myself on my knees, and start repentin' and a-prayin'.

But, to get at another part of what you're asking, I do distinguish, say, my personal experience and the like with general reality. I try to distinguish what I think and feel for idiosyncratic reasons from that which I have solid reason to believe.

And I try to read and respond to what the person has actually written (though sometimes do the other thing instead).

There are a lot of "facts" and "stats" that NEED to be explained away, as what they say go against the vast majority of the evidence.

And when I don't know, I don't claim to know.

But, yes, a lot of people just say what they like believing, rather than what they have reason to believe.