It's a tendency to assume a certain conclusion before any evidence is even examined and then to cherrypick or invent evidence to fit that preexisting conclusion.

It leads to obvious closed epistemic loops - the worst case I am familiar with are conspiracy theorists who treat lack of evidence for the conspiracy as evidence of it being... correct (since it means the conspriacy is powerful enough to suppress evidence).

Any ideas?

Because it works.

47 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It's a tendency to assume a certain conclusion before any evidence is even examined and then to cherrypick or invent evidence to fit that preexisting conclusion.

It leads to obvious closed epistemic loops - the worst case I am familiar with are conspiracy theorists who treat lack of evidence for the conspiracy as evidence of it being... correct (since it means the conspriacy is powerful enough to suppress evidence).

Any ideas?

I should have thought the reason is to enable quick decisions, without having to wait until it is too late to act. One uses partial evidence and consults one's prior learning and experience as to what the evidence suggests and decides on the basis of what seems probable. We do it all the time.

I think you are not correct to assume these decisions are based on no evidence. It is just that the evidence supplied is misinterpreted due to biased learning. For instance: light in the sky, moving apparently oddly, without sound -> little green men, because we've just read "Chariots of the Gods".

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because it works.

Does it? The quality of politics around the world suggests otherwise...

32 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Does it? The quality of politics around the world suggests otherwise...

Yes, it does. It is an effective manipulation technique.

2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

It's a tendency to assume a certain conclusion before any evidence is even examined and then to cherrypick or invent evidence to fit that preexisting conclusion.

It leads to obvious closed epistemic loops - the worst case I am familiar with are conspiracy theorists who treat lack of evidence for the conspiracy as evidence of it being... correct (since it means the conspriacy is powerful enough to suppress evidence).

Any ideas?

I don't understand your question.

Are you saying that misuse is the only human use of this process ?

or

Are you saying this is a danger of using this process ?

Or what ?

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't understand your question.

Are you saying that misuse is the only human use of this process ?

or

Are you saying this is a danger of using this process ?

Or what ?

Indeed, also @Otto Kretschmer what is motivated doing in the title?