The Bishop and the Analyst
The cognitive bias of selectively applying skepticism to certain domains (e.g., religion) while uncritically accepting authority in others (e.g., economics, science), often due to confirmation bias.
THE IDEA
The Bishop and the Analyst
I am most often irritated by those who attack the bishop but somehow fall for the securities analyst—those who exercise their skepticism against religion but not against economists, social scientists, and phony statisticians. Using the confirmation bias, these people will tell you that religion was horrible for mankind by counting deaths from the Inquisition and various religious wars. But they will not show you how many people were killed by nationalism, social science, and political theory under Stalinism or during the Vietnam War. Even priests don’t go to bishops when they feel ill: their first stop is the doctor’s. But we stop by the offices of many pseudo-scientists and “experts” without alternative. We no longer believe in papal infallibility; we seem to believe in the infallibility of the Nobel, as discussed in Chapter 17.
When to use it
Evaluating news sources: Apply consistent critical thinking to all outlets regardless of political alignment.
Investment decisions: Scrutinize financial analysts and stock tips with the same rigor you would apply to a get-rich-quick scheme.
Policy debates: When comparing proposed solutions, count both the intended benefits and potential unintended harms, regardless of which side proposes them.
Personal health choices: assessing claims by the quality of the evidence, including study methods and conflicts of interest, rather than accepting or rejecting them because of the label attached.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Religious vs. Secular Ideologies
A person points out the historical atrocities committed in the name of religion (e.g., Inquisition, Crusades) to dismiss all religious belief, yet fails to similarly count the deaths caused by secular ideologies like Stalinism or nationalism, treating them as separate or justified.
Skepticism Towards Alternative Medicine vs. Pharmaceuticals
Someone is highly skeptical of alternative medicine (e.g., homeopathy) and demands rigorous evidence, but readily accepts the claims of drug advertisements or pharmaceutical studies without questioning potential biases or conflicts of interest.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
In which domains of your life do you find yourself most skeptical, and where do you tend to accept information uncritically?
How can you ensure you apply the same standard of evidence to claims from different authorities (e.g., scientists, economists, religious leaders)?
Think of an area where you trust a specific expert or institution. Have you ever evaluated their track record as harshly as you evaluate groups you dislike?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Black Swan The Impact of the Highly Improbable With a new section On Robustness and Fragility (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)