- Published: August 26, 2022
- Updated: August 26, 2022
- University / College: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
- Level: Doctor of Philosophy
- Language: English
- Downloads: 3
From the definition of bias as a framework (perspective) from which the author writes or the direction in which the author is spinning the article. It can be understood that no author writes without bias. There is no such thing as fair and balanced reporting. That is an illusion. The story by Ken Sayers, “ Early hominids ate just about everything” can be viewed as biased to his interest.
Three premises can therefore be identified in this article as follows: First is the foraging behavior of animals that are living. He argues that organisms engage almost all the time in what makes them stay alive which he lists as feeding, reproducing and escaping their likely predators (Sayers). Thus the picture of the diet of hominids can be so hazy judging from what they present as evidence of them hunting and gathering fruits. The writer argues that organisms will select their foods based on their profitability and accessibility. Thus in a variety of foods any organism will go first for the most nutritious and then in a case where the profitable foods are scarce then the animal tends to broaden their diet to acquire the nutritious components from diverse foods. Secondly, the evidence given does not give credible information about the importance of such foods and thus lacks critical argument that would set hominids aside from other living primates (Sayers). This is because, the foods the researchers list is all eaten regularly by monkeys and other apes.
Thirdly, that the prescriptions in the argument about the diet of our ancestors have been drawn from mere observations of the modern humans whose lifestyle is at least a partial hunter-like and gatherer in manner of existence. This is based on the observations that scientist make on those who have chosen a feeding mannerism that are closely similar to the hunters and gatherers by way of their diet choices and preferences.
The author’s bias is therefore that the evolution of hominids is not supposed to be argued based on forage strategy as the mere reason they evolved to the current existing humans. He argues that rather a flexible combination of both social and ecological adjustments that evolved over time due to the search for better life options (Sayers). The social adjustments can be understood as the adjustments around the social nature of beings that include communication, organizations among others. The ecological would then include diet modification habitat and among others.
In conclusion, bias as a framework or perspective from which the author writes or the direction in which the author spins their articles, is thus evident in the story by Ken Sayers, “ Early hominids ate just about everything” from how his arguments are directed by the three premises that include: prescriptions in the argument about the diet of ancestors being drawn from observations of modern humans whose lifestyle is partially hunter-like and gatherer; foraging behavior of animals that are living; and finally the provided evidence’s failure to give information about the importance of such to set hominids aside from other living primates.
Sayers, Ken. Phy. org. 17 Feb 2015. 10 Mar 2015 .