I’ve had some time on my hands this evening and read some "conservative" political blogs. Politics is the art of making decisions with insufficient evidence to firmly support one decision over another.我已经有一些时间对我的手今天晚上，看了一些“保守”的政治博客。政治是艺术的决策，没有足够的证据来坚定地支持一个决定另一个。 Thus, unlike hard science, it is a subject of hot and passionate debate.因此，不同的硬科学，它是一个热门主题，充满激情的辩论。 In addition to lack of firm evidence supporting one view over another, we tend to be socially imprinted with a certain philosophical and political outlook early in live.除了缺乏确凿的证据支持了一种观点，但我们往往被社会留下了一定的哲学和政治前景早期生活。 For a good fraction of us, it is very hard to later re-evaluate views and opinions that we "soaked up" early in life as new evidence comes along.有一个良好的小部分人来说，很难后来重新评估的观点和意见，我们“泡了”早期生命中新的证据的。 Thus rather than change our political views so that they are compatible with new evidence, we tend to undervalue or ignore evidence that does not support our already held view.因此，而不是改变我们的政治观点，使它们符合新的证据，我们往往低估或忽略的证据表明，不支持我们已经举行了看法。 Alternatively, we will try to discredit any piece of evidence that does not fit into our world view.另外，我们将尽力诋毁任何证据，不符合我们的世界观。 The scientific name for this is the Confirmation Bias and it is a source of great misery in our lives.科学的名称，这是确认偏误 ，它是一个巨大的苦难在我们的生活中。 The formal sciences have developed ways of dealing with this human trait, but not everybody that writes about politics or acts in the political arena has formal scientific training.正式的科学发展的方式处理这个人的特质，但并不是每个人都写政治行为或在政治舞台上有正式的科学训练。 Even if they did, it would still be possible to reasonably disagree about issues.即使没有，它仍然有可能合理意见分歧的问题。 But I have to believe that if more among us had scientific training our political discourse would be based on reason, aka evidence, not pure unsupported opinion masquerading as rational discourse.但我认为，如果我们之间更科学的训练了我们的政治话语将根据原因，又名证据，而不是纯粹的不受支持的意见伪装成理性的话语。
OK, an example: Here’sa nice essay about "explaining liberal thinking".确定，一个例子： 下面好作文的“解释自由主义思想” 。 Right off the bat, the author makes it clear where he stands on this issue, there is no pretense of objectivity.权从蝙蝠，作者清楚地表明，他主张在这个问题上，没有任何借口的客观性。 The author’s definition of liberalism is " childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues." Liberals are like children, conservatives (the author as one example) are the adults that ,so it is implied, can deal with issues unemotionally, based solely on the facts at hand.作者的定义，自由主义是“ 童稚的感情主义适用于成人的问题。 ”自由就像是儿童，保守派（作者作为一个例子）是成人，所以它是隐含的，可以处理的问题unemotionally ，仅仅依据手头上的事实。 I think a good percentage of the conservative public holds this view.我认为，一个良好的比例保守公众持有这种观点。 The first part of this essay is full of generalizations and commonplaces and without a single example or evidence to support his case.第一部分的这篇文章充满了概括和commonplaces ，没有一个单一的例子或者证据来支持他的案件。 It is thus not possible to evaluate the author’s personal opinions in an objective, fact-based manner.因此，这是不可能的评价作者的个人意见客观，以事实为依据的方式进行。
Interestingly, in the author’s world view, liberalism is akin to religion, which presumably means the author is not a religions type.有意思的是，在作者的世界观，自由主义是类似于宗教，这大概是指作者是不是一个宗教类型。 Thus we may find out more about the author’s world view than about liberalism in the first half of this piece.因此，我们可以了解更多关于作者的世界观而不是自由主义上半年的这片。
The second half of the essay starts with this:下半年开始，作文本：
Why are so many liberals hostile to the troops? 为什么有这么多敌对自由派的军队？ Because the troops tend to be conservative (evil) and because they’re out killing people and breaking things (which would make most liberals feel like bad people). 由于部队往往是保守的（邪恶） ，并因为他们的杀害人民，打破东西（这将使大多数自由派感觉不好的人） 。
The author really believes that "so many" ( I guess this is a majority?) liberals are hostile to the men and women that serve in the US military.真正的作者认为， “如此多的” （我想这是一个多数？ ）自由派敌视男性和女性服务的美国军队。 The author just "knows" this and there is no need to cite references that would indicate that "so many" liberals are hostile to our troops.作者只是“知道”这也没有必要举出提法表明， “这么多的”自由派敌视我们的军队。 But is the premise "so many liberals are hostile to our troops" really true?但前提是“这么多敌对自由派对我们的军队”真的吗？ Is there scientific, objective evidence available on this?是否有科学，客观的证据可以在此？ I do not buy this premise and thus the entire argument is worthless, from my point of view.我不买这个前提下，从而使整个论点是毫无价值的，我的观点。 But the important point is that the author of this article unquestionably believes that liberalism equates with hostility to our troops.但是，重要的一点是，本文作者认为，毫无疑问，自由主义等同于敌视我们的军队。 Again, I think a majority of ‘hardcore’ conservatives agree with the author on this point because they know it to be true in their gut.同样，我想大多数的'铁杆'保守派同意作者关于这一点，因为他们知道这是真正在其肠道。 They need no further evidence.他们不再需要进一步的证据。 The fact that many liberals serve or served in the US armed forces is ignored and played down in the author’s mind…these liberal servicemen are…ah… exceptions that prove the rule: Classic Confirmation Bias.事实上，许多自由派人士担任或担任美国武装部队被忽视和淡化的作者的心灵...这些自由的军人啊... ...证明例外的规则：古典确认偏差。
Another unsupported premise and "explanation" follows:另一种不受支持的前提和“解释”如下：
Why are so many liberals unpatriotic? 为何有如此多的自由主义者不爱国？ It makes liberals feel morally superior to rant about what’s wrong with their own country. 这使自由派感到在道德上言论有什么不对自己的国家。 Plus, as an added bonus, people from other nations agree with them and that makes them feel good as well. 另外，作为一个额外的好处，人们从其他国家同意与他们，使他们感觉良好的。
I take issue with the premise, in that I do not think that liberals are less or more patriotic than conservatives and the author fails to provide objective evidence to support his claim.我的问题的前提，因为我并不认为自由派较少或更多的爱国比保守派和作者没有提供客观证据来支持他的索赔。 Just as well he may have written "Why do so many liberals have body odor? Because they refuse to take frequent showers."正如以及他可能写着“为什么这么多自由派身体气味？因为他们拒绝采取频繁的阵雨。 ” Same claim, same explanation.同样的主张，同样的解释。 It’s an unsupported opinion, nothing more.这是一个不受支持的意见，仅此而已。
The list goes on.这样的例子不胜枚举。 In summary, there is a startling discrepancy between the authors implied claim that conservatives like the author deal with the world on the basis of facts (NOT emotions as liberal do), and the complete absence of verifiable facts in this essay.总之，有一个惊人的差异隐含的作者宣称，保守的作者一样处理世界的基础上的事实（不自由的情绪作为做） ，以及完全没有核查的事实在这篇文章。 Only someone who has a strong case of the Confirmation Bias would not notice this paradox.有人谁，只有拥有强大的情况下确认偏差不会注意到这个矛盾。
Time to retire to my very liberal bed.退休的时间对我非常宽松的床上。 Good night!晚安！
