Can a fact be 'biased'? [closed]

Solution 1:

Speaking from a statistical perspective, it is definitely possible to create factual statements that have a bias.

It's important to keep in mind the definition here:

noun
        prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

I submit to you several factual statements designed with bias.

1. "More white people are killed by police officers than black people." The implication here should be obvious. And, to be fair, this statement is factually true. However, it fails to mention that there are far more white Americans than black.

2. "The number of deaths as a result of DUIs have increased since marijuana was legalized in Colorado." Again, this is indeed a true statement. However, since the legalization, the population of Colorado has increased significantly.

3. "The design of the F-35 has several flaws." True statement. The design of every aircraft has several flaws, so while this is clearly designed to make the F-35 look bad, it's also a true statement.

The problem mostly lies in what you consider indisputable fact. In the words of Nietzsche:

You have your way. I have my way.
As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

Solution 2:

I would think the word "biased" should apply to a person, and only one who has some obligation to be neutral.

However, a selection of facts can be biased. If you cherry-pick only the best or only the worst aspects of any entity, even if each fact is true in isolation, the impression can be misleading.

For example, supporters of Obama like to say, "He reduced the deficit" -- which is true, the deficit during the Obama administration was lower than it was in 2008, which was the year before he took office, but it was also the year of the worst global financial meltdown since the Depression, and so isn't really a valid baseline. In this sense, the selection of one fact, true though it is, is "biased".

Similarly, I cited one egregious misbehavior by some Obama supporters. If that behavior is not generally representative, my own fact might be "biased".

(Probably words like misleading or nonrepresentative are better than biased.)

Solution 3:

There are facts and there are "facts" - with the latter, the quotes around it can be called 'scare quotes' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes ) - they are a way of saying "so called", ie implying that they are not facts at all.

Presenting misinformation or outright lies as "facts" is such a common practise for people (or newspapers etc) trying to advance a particular argument, that the whole notion of an indisputable fact has been brought into disrepute. In other words, all facts can be suspected of being "facts".

I suspect that you thought your fact was indisputably true, while your friend is saying that it's a scare-quote-fact, ie dubious.

EDIT - the edit to the OP's question, in which the entire exchange is reproduced, bears this out:

 'Biased 'facts' no doubt.'

Note the scare quotes around facts.

EDIT - philosophical note. Trying to reduce the chaos and complexity of the world around us into simple facts is something that has kept philosophers busy for thousands of years, and will continue to keep them busy for thousands more I suspect. It's possible that there is no such thing as an undisputably true fact, and all things presented as facts are to some degree opinions and approximations.