I was a bit surprised to see that Victor Reppert took a defensive stance in response (I believe) to my previous post, in which I said that he seized upon a certain article that appealed to his confirmation bias. Victors words were:
It seems to me that the defense of any position can be attributed to confirmation by its opponents. It is a charge that proves everything, and therefore nothing. - ReppertHe seems to think that the accusation of confirmation bias was used to refute his argument, but since anyone can be accused of having confirmation bias, it is a meaningless charge. What's surprising to me is his failure to grasp what it means to say that someone has confirmation bias, and that he would see this as a refutation. So let me try to set the record straight.