Self-fulfilling prophecies and confirmation bias work together to construct images of the world that are both true and false. When we want something to be true, we only look for information that validates such a belief. Our prior notion of something determines what we discover about it. For example, a researcher studying a political issue and exercising liberal control might search for sources like the New York Times or the New Republic. Their belief that guns are bad or that same-sex marriage is a good thing is validated by their desire to see if their belief is true. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay However, limiting yourself to a few biased sources of information is not entirely inaccurate. Assuming that the information you use is true, even information gathered from a limited and non-exhaustive range of sources is still valid. Not everything The New York Times says about abortion necessarily constitutes a balanced opinion, but that doesn't make it false or untrue. Of course, it's always good to base a decision or argument on more information, rather than less. However, no argument has ever had access to all existing information. There is no single argument that truly summarizes all the relevant information a person might need. Ergo, a lack of information is not an effective hole to fuel an argument; all arguments lack information. Arguments based on biased or incomplete information find themselves in a strange state of half-truth. For one thing, you won't get any big arguments about gun control on the NRA website. On the other hand, assuming the NRA website isn't actually lying, you won't have a facetious argument either. Personally, I'm not sure how to evaluate such arguments. They are particularly prevalent in politics, hence my choice of example. Politics, however, is known for its bullshit arguments. In fact, I'm currently reading a book about the Reagan administration. Part of the reason the administration was able to achieve its goals was its use of bullshit arguments. Reagan had his basic principles that he believed in, and he expected the results to be good, so he almost never wavered on his fundamentals. It was as if he realized that proving his philosophy was a pointless activity. A crappy, self-fulfilling argument based on confirmation bias could be made, so it wasn't necessary. This is like the 10 billionth essay I've written on this concept, but once again, subjective and objective knowledge merge...