We give old ideas new labels. Twice in recent months I saw references to something called "confirmation bias," so I Google searched it and came up with this on Wikipedia.
Confirmation bias is the idea that we interpret the world according to what makes us feel better.
Do you want to believe someone is innocent? Guilty? That's how you read the facts. Stalin, Hitler, and Saddam were bad, right? Then how come so many people continue to believe they were great heroes?
We discount, or ignore, what doesn't support our views and emphasize what does. Confirmation bias.
It accounts for a lot of false accusations by police and DAs. And convictions by juries. And judges.
Before this new "scientific" term, we might have said that prejudice will out.
Or the "trick mirror" approach. If you Google this site, you'll see a few references to this. This is where you reason that if X is true then Y is true, but if X is false, Y continues to be true. Why? Because that's how you want to read the evidence anyway, to reach your desired conclusion without impediment or obstacle.
Happens a lot in child molestation cases.
Now we have a new term for it.
Good.
I was onto it before it was invented.
"Trick mirror approach."
Not as scientific sounding, but just as skeptical, don't you think?