Not that the following happended EXACTLY.. but for arguements sake consider the following.
Bill is giving pH a product to test. He is instructing him on how to test it. What numbers he should get. If he doesn't come to these numbers, he is working with the tester (independent?) to come up with the pre tested (bills) numbers and then pH will submit this review as an unbias, objective review of a product. When you instruct or guide to numbers or or state that your own testing meathods are best (not arguiging that) that regradless of truth of best meathods is bias in itself. The bias is not in the numbers but of how they came about or the way the were presented after the fact.
I am not calling the numbers WRONG I am not saying anyone is lying to their own understanding ON THE NUMBERS. Its the package, presentation or derivation of what is correct, THIS is the bias.
If you guys can't see that bias doesn't have to be intentional or seen by yourself. You don't have to admit it personally but it is there.
Quote:
quoted by Unregisgtered no joemac1, I am not like you
I am an engineer, and the facts are the facts
I do not misrepresent, twist words, or shade meanings
|
You oh engineer.. have twisted Joemac in a light to be an absolute liar of truth, when in practice it wasn't absolute in my understandings. Even a misunderstanding and a statement thereafter is a shading of a meaning. A speaker of absolutes Bill or denier of bias in this case is the decieved.