So, what solutions have the law, science, and, yes, the Church come up with in order to minimize bias and misinterpretation? Yes, what do all three fields share in common as a way to overcome the inherent bias of humans?
Interestingly enough, all three fields have “developed” the use of a panel of multiple people in order to try and minimize bias and misinterpretation. Please note that I said to minimize. I did not say to eliminate. But, let’s look at how it works in each field.
Science — the scientific model is that of both using repetition in order to ensure that the results are reliable and using blind studies. Both techniques have been reformed and refined to try and ensure accuracy. Science bases its results on peer review. But, the more the experiment affects current scientific orthodoxy, the broader the peer review must be. So, for instance, it is not unusual in cosmology to have astrophysicists and/or astronomers from various countries attempting to repeat sightings and experiments. Whereas, some attempts to improve the efficiency of a small component of a particular device may never make it outside the company that makes the device, as that does not affect scientific orthodoxy. But, do not miss the fact that the solution is to use a “panel” of multiple people to try to prevent bias and misinterpretation.
Law — the legal model is that of appellate and supreme courts that also use multiple people in order to minimize bias and misinterpretation. In some countries, crimes that can earn jail time are even tried by panels of three judges rather than juries. But, the accepted legal orthodoxy is that the lone judge is sufficient for almost all cases–remember few cases are actually accepted by appellate courts–but the panel is necessary for cases that raise questions. In other words, there is the assumption that in difficult questions, any one judge is insufficient to guarantee reliability. But, this is also why it is important that appellate and supreme courts have a diverse membership. And, this is, frankly, why I agree that in some cases a wise Latina will make a better judgment than an elder white male. But, in some cases a Latina may make a worse judgment than a black judge. Do you get the idea? A Supreme Court that is packed with advocates of only one judicial philosophy, and packed with people from only one background, is extremely likely to give mistaken and biased judgments on at least some, and perhaps several, issues. There are actually two Scriptural examples that I can give that may surprise you.
Church — the Church model is that of synods and Ecumenical Councils. But, before we look at the Church, let’s take that Scriptural aside I mentioned.
Acts 6 — notice that a typical racial/ethnic confrontation arose. The Greek Christians accused the Hebrew Christians of bias against them. First, for those of you who try to see perceptions of bias as something of an American thing, it is not. It is not liberal. It is not modern. As early as the first decade of the Church, the subject of racism had to be dealt with. But, their solution was different than our arguments. First, notice that the Twelve Apostles actually gave credence to the complaint. How do I know that? Every deacon appointed was Greek-named. Second, notice that the Twelve Apostles trusted that if they gave authority to the Greek-named deacons that it would work out. In other words, the Apostles were conscious enough of possible bias that they essentially agreed that there needed to be people with authority from that group. And, guess what? They were not worried about counter-bias. Why? Because in this type of approach, you trust that the parties will balance each other out. Or, another way to put it, the assumption is that everyone is probably slightly biased, so let’s get them all together after prayer. I wish that those who had opposed Sotomayor had read Acts 6 first. In passing, the first martyr of the Church came from the Greek Christians, St. Stephen. So, the Apostles’ solution of bringing the group that felt oppressed into the authority circle produced one of the great evangelists and martyrs of church history. Not bad, right?
Acts 15 — this time the fight was over the relationship of the Gospel to the Old Testament law. And, look how they handled it. Church leaders came from all over the then-existing Christian communities. There was no little debate. Again, prayer and the Holy Spirit are mentioned. But catch that, just like in the Acts 6 model, it is a mixed group that works on trying to make sure they know what truth is, in this circumstance.
I will talk more about the Church tomorrow, and wrap back to the law.
===MORE TO COME===
Leave a Reply