Bias and Selection

It's possible to attain reasonably accurate knowledge, but you may have to do a lot of research to get it. I think most biblical scholars spend their whole lives trying to separate real history from modern myth.

History is a restating of the record. New information comes to light all the time. To continue Roswell's example from biblical myths and "history," it was long believed by reputable scholars that Pontius Pilate probably had not existed. This was based on a lack of corroborative evidence (records), and the problem of interpolation by christians who were willing to alter existing records to sustain their claims. I won't go into the problem of interpolation here.

However, in 1961, Israeli archaeologists uncovered a monumental inscription with Pilate's name carved on it. The evidence was literally carved in stone. The historical record was established on that basis. This doesn't mean that history is an unreliable branch of knowledge, and, in fact, as with the scientific method, the historical record can be refined due to the application of new evidence. If you want to call that a case of history evolving, help yourself. It is not, however, evidence that history is an unreliable branch of knowledge.

The first two things that popped into my head are teaching creationism next to evolution, and abstinence only sex education.

I know that some disagree but to me there is no way you can twist creationism into science, surely not just by calling it "creation science". I think it creates a problem with interpreting the material because an incurious student will give them equal footing.

I think everyone can see the problem with abstinence only sex education. It simply isn't realistic. Sex education should be taught as a science.

You will always have some level of bias on what you submerge yourself into. I personally don't like the comment that you have to be open minded to new ideas or things. But that doesn't really mean anything other than accept something without any good reason to accept it. So I like to go somewhere in between skepticism and being open to learning something new. Try to put down as much bias as you can when you are examining something but you'll never get away from all of it. Be willing to take on all the arguments put towards the subject and then from there take the facts and the problems and turn them around without trying to put any emotion or offense into what conclusions you come to. I think it takes a level of honesty to actually accomplish that, and it is a rare thing to actually do, I will include myself into that group of not always pulling it off how I just explained.

Thank you for the replies. I will have a think about this some more.

I just can´t see based on what you make the assumption one follows from another...
How does being open to "new ideas" imply´s not having a good reason for it ?
...you probably are just up against some guys around who use that expression to speak nonsense...and with that much I agree !

isn't the double-blind experiment a way of totally avoiding bias?

Probably, the scientific method is the most effective way to minimize bias and delusion. But at a philosophical level, say that of Nietzsche's epistemology, human understanding is fundamentally a matter of perspective and interpretation.

An account of history can change or be revised because it's a human invention slash interpretation slash methodological product. But the actual past, independent of such systemic knowledge, cannot be altered. That's fairly safe to say in the context of eternalism and "growing-universe" philosophies of time, though in presentism it might have to be contended that -- since the past no longer exists -- it is any objective status of records or "memory" in the environment that must substitute for it.

But the scientific method does not take into account the problems of perception (being a delusional factor) or the level of understanding of the scientist, or the extent of their vocabulary (to record or describe observations). It just seems that bias cannot be avoided, but...it can be minimised. So, despite bias, is it still possible to gather useful knowledge?

I think that seems to be the case in science, because whether or not bias is acting as a problem, results are being generated, and useful knowledge is being gathered. Don't you agree?

Everybody has some form of bias, because we learn from our environment. As for history, all we can do is try rely on what was observed during that period and recorded by more than one person's "opinion."

It's the age old problem of having five witnesses to a murder or an accident, and all five will have different interpretations of what they saw.

Don't believe anything you see and only half of what you hear is a good place to start.

But the problem is how to deal with these five interpretations...do you pick one over the other? do you select parts from each? are the witnesses' information even useful to us?

We always pick one of the five; we use our own subjective judgment that we believe to be closest to the truth.

Granted, perception and level of knowledge are always threats to the claim of absolute objective Truth (what some might call God's Truth). The Truth is often if not always SOMEBODY'S truth, always a matter of prediction and control (as stressed by Fresco) by and for someone.
And consider the inevitability that all conclusions and assumptions rest upon tacit cultural presuppositions, the so-called foundations of all understandings and claims.

my argument is that knowledge can be attained despite the problems of bias and selection, but i really need help on that as i don't have enough points to back my argument up. anyone want to help?

We must consider most knowledge (formally endorsed opinion) to be provisional, awaiting new information for its refinement or rejection. See Thomas Kuhn.
BTW, I like Krumple's "middle way" posture, see above.