An Analysis Of The Bay Of Pigs Invasion

1600 Words 7 Pages
It is reasonable to expect that with a common set of facts, two experts within a discipline with a high level of expertise will make similar conclusions. However, as is evident in society and the areas of knowledge, experts will reach a wide variety of varying opinions that result in disagreements.
Within the area of history, there are many discrepancies that arise between the opinions of experts due to bias. How does bias affect knowledge within history? For example, while researching the Bay of Pigs Invasion in my history class, I found that experts varied in opinion on the blame that should be placed on President Kennedy for the failure of the invasion. As I looked at the variety of sources that have been created since the invasion failed,
…show more content…
How is historical knowledge affected by events in the present? Sources made in the decades afterwards are less critical of President Kennedy and fault the CIA in the invasion for their negligent behavior. So it becomes clear that bias resulting from Watergate is the main source of conflict in the debate - the contextual events surrounding the creation of an opinion has an impact on the ideas that were derived from the facts that were present. The opinions of experts are not solely based on their understanding of the historical facts involved but are also influenced by the events of their times and their personal views. The ideas of a historian arise from reasoning based upon factual evidence and also their interpretations of the facts themselves. Interpretations of history by experts often will not agree as most historians have differing opinions about the world, which causes them to rationalize their views through the context of their personal background. The influence of an expert’s personal background will cause a deviation away from the opinions of other experts in the ideas that they form from a set of factual information that they can access. Factual evidence in history forms the foundation of the entire area of knowledge, and they are …show more content…
Status as an expert will create an illusion of credibility within the mind of the less knowledgeable. However, it is clear that the experts often will choose to ignore certain sources of information that they believe oppose their views. For example, the labeling of news sources as being liberal or conservative provide a way for experts to avoid sources that might contrast with their personal views. The deliberate avoidance of opposing views is found throughout the human sciences, and in other areas of knowledge as well. Experts in fields will try to avoid the facts that are available to them and misinform others to reinforce their intuition at the cost of polluting common knowledge. Expertise does not prevent an expert from falling prey to common human flaws such as ignorance and the desire to reinforce one’s beliefs, and this is common to other areas of knowledge as well, as shown with bias in

Related Documents