analyse authors

[Izzywizzy]

A book is only as good as its author time to treat a book like any other BIAS creative pursuit..it seems book writers get a lot more credibility than they deserve..the word bias is ignored where authors are concerned.. I ask you why?

[Izzywizzy]

I ask you why BIAS is ignored with historians and their accounts?

[Impenitent]

that bias is shared

-Imp

[Fred Gohlke]

Izzywizzy wrote:

A book is only as good as its author time to treat a book like any other BIAS creative pursuit..it seems book writers get a lot more credibility than they deserve..the word bias is ignored where authors are concerned.. I ask you why?

No small part of the reason is that books are written to be sold. To improve sales, marketers proclaim the author's insight and wisdom, whether there is any or not.

While the technology of communication has advanced over time, its effectiveness has lagged, if not receded. This disparity occurs because the modes of communication, whether the printed word or the broadcast word, are uni-directional - from an author or an announcer to an audience.

The current means of communication, unfortunately and inaccurately, assume the author or announcer has greater knowledge than the audience. Not only is that rarely (if ever) true, it tends to propagate the inadequacies and biases of the source. True knowledge cannot be attained unless assertions are challenged and the underlying concepts examined. In other words, the acquisition of knowledge requires discourse. It is, and must be, a multi-directional undertaking.

Fred Gohlke

[chaz wyman]

I ask you why BIAS is ignored with historians and their accounts?

Bias is never ignored. The ideological background of the historian is always considered.