The Stratagem of Selectivity
Suppose that Sammy Selective is zealously committed to belief B. “B must be true!” he says to himself. Yet he wants some evidence, which he finds in C. “C supports B, and everyone believes C!” he says to his friend, Frank.
“I grant that C provides some support to B,” Frank replies. “But things aren’t so simple. D and E are likely to be true, and D and E seem to disconfirm B. How do you account for this apparent counter-evidence?”
Sammy’s response? He ignores the question, pretending D and E don’t exist. That way, he can protect his commitment to B.
This is the fallacy of selective attention. Some call it confirmation bias or suppressed evidence. It’s similar to “Never let ‘em pin you down,” which I addressed here. Both might involve the reluctance to admit being wrong. Both might involve treating what should be rational dialogue as if it were a game of words. However, in “Never …,” one keeps changing one’s view to avoid objections, constantly running away like a game of tag. In matters of selective attention, one hides from objections, like a game of hide-and-seek, except there’s more hiding than seeking.