Before the baseball season began, a friend and I got into several debates about who was the better bay area team. He is a A's fan and I'm a Giants fan. Before the season started, we could only make subjective claims solely based off our of personal bias to a baseball team. We didn't have any win/loss records to argue over, combined ERA of either pitching staffs, or any other statistic that helped us prove our points. We decided that we would pick up where we left off as the season wore on. As each team accumulated wins/losses and their personal stars, we had factual information that both of us could now use. At the time we debated (Early August), the Giants had just come off of an incredible July where they went 21-7. The Giants were 17 games over .500, while the A's were hovering just above the .500 line (for those not involved with baseball, a win/loss record that is the same is a .500 ball-club. Ex. a "65-65" record is a .500 record). The A's have a potential AL Cy Young winner in Trevor Cahill, but the Giants have the better record and potential Rookie of the Year winner in Buster Posey.
An example of a "subjective" claim I've recently heard is a friend debating over the existence of God. He's a heavily devoted Christian that decides to use Facebook as a way to force his beliefs on others. I don't partae in his debates as religion arguments get very heated, but it all comes down to what your personal belief is, obviously leading to bias. As it stands now, there isn't factual evidence proving nor disproving the existence of a god. Any claim made otherwise is subjective.
No comments:
Post a Comment