Free from bias in recognition?

There will always be a certain degree and a certain sense of bias in the process of an act to perceive or recognize something. It is impossible to be free from being biased in the conduct of making a point. The target of one's perception or recognition is itsself derived from one's interest which is the realization of one's bias. For example: when the media is attempting to report an issue, the media is already biased. Why is the media reporting the specific issue over others when there are countless other issues? It is because the media has and is based on its own awareness and motivation which is the realization of its bias. The difference in awareness and motivation among writers will lead to the diversity in the selection of issues as media coverage and will lead to offering a variety of points of view on the issue. Otherwise, there will be no difference among media reports in both the selection of topics and the offering of the corresponding possible interpretations. Anyone or any organization can argue neutrality in their opinions, but practically it is impossible to do so. Anyone is always and is naturally biased in such a way that characterizes himself or herself. One can be said to be true and sincere not only to oneself but also to others if one is to be aware that the awareness or motivation is the reflection of one's inherent bias and if one is to be open to others that the one is biased in this sense. Ironically enough, if one has awareness and motivation on an issue, then one is biased in a way that leads oneself to such awareness and motivation. If one is unbiased in one's thinking, then it is almost equivalent to being that the one does not have awareness or motivation on real-world issues.

It is a nontrivial experience for anyone to be in a process to understand what is unknown to himself or herself. What are the things that are truly worth learning? How can one reach understanding? What is the correctness in understanding? These are examples of common questions to be asked and can never be answered by those who seek truth. Some of the methodologies that survive to this day would be those by Euclid, Aristotle, René Descartes, and more. In the days of science-oriented society like the one we happen to live in, the ways of thought offered in Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper, for example, would be a starting point for perception and recognition about everything that we face in the daily life, be it either in scientific, economic, political, sociologic, or cultural aspects or in aspects in their different degrees of mixture. While recognizing the above, the methodologies themselves are just those that give some hints, are those that are imperfect in a sense that they are applicable under some certain respective conditions, and are those that do not guarantee the correctness of each decision making based on them.

There is one common aspect in each of these methodologies: start with asking a question. An event or phenomenon is nontrivial if there are more than one valid hypotheses to explain it. The degree of openness to a discussion about valid hypotheses is a proxy of how healthy the society is.

If one happens to be forced to face a situation where none of the conventional idea seems to be valid anymore and non-standard methodologies are being implemented by authorities with or without seemingly reasonable explanations, then one might want to pay attention more to the following than to seeking for seemingly correct or heaven-sent answers: what kind of hypotheses are being raised? How are the hypotheses being tested in the discussions? How is a political decision making made following the relevant arguments? If raising hypotheses are denied without being tested, then the surrounding situation is not academic. If a valid hypothesis is not fully tested, then the surrounding situation is not true to the truth. If a valid argument is not openly discussed, then the society that supports the surrounding situation is not healthy. If a political decision making is made irrelevant with the corresponding arguments, then it is much more likely that there will be long-lasting negative effects to the society.