It's gotten to the point where when Person A accuses Source 1 of being biased, I assume, until proven otherwise, what Person A is saying is "I don't like what Source 1 says".
Accusations of bias is also an intellectually weak argument. If Person B points to Source 1 to back up an argument, Person A shouldn't say "Source 1 is so biased", Person A should say "Source 1 is wrong because of X, Y, and Z".
Well if they point to a storm front thread in a discussion about race, I think disregarding anything person says is safe.
Being aware of bias is useful, because you should be more skeptical of biased sources, and attempt independent verification. Discounting a source solely for being biased is a logical fallacy, however. Even biased people can be correct.
Yes. Â Biases exist. Â In fact, there is no such thing as a source with bias. Â As described in my post though, I'm talking about using an accusation of bias as an argument in and of itself.
Using "bias" as an argument is a method of building a filter bubble wherein people only hear things that confirm what they already believe.
edited my last comment to read "source without bias" instead of "source with bias".