There seems to be a wee bit of confusion regarding the distinction between subjective, relative, and biased. Hopefully, this will help.
If you argue there is snow on the ground because you can see there is snow on the ground, then you are arguing for a subjective position. i.e. the evidence for the snow is subjective, personal experience.
If you argue that Jone's view there is snow on the ground and Smith's view there is no snow on the ground are equally valid views, you are arguing for a relative position. Please note, there really are people who believe such things. Most often, they seem to be postmodern philosophers, such as Laurie Calhoun -- who famously proposed that the fact a giraffe is taller than an ant was not an objective fact at all, but rather an article of faith that could vary from culture to culture. Again, postmodernists have proposed such things as witchcraft is the epistemic equal of Newtonian physics, or that the laws of quantum mechanics are only valid from a "Eurocentric" and "bourgeois" point of view. These are all examples of genuine relativism.
If you argue that there is no snow on the ground because -- despite the fact there really is snow on the ground -- you just don't like snow (so you deny there is any on the ground), then you are being biased.
Subjective, relative, biased. They do not mean precisely the same thing. Hopefully, this will get you started on the distinctions between them.
Questions? Comments?
___________________
And now, in a futile effort to make it up to you for a boring OP....
If you argue there is snow on the ground because you can see there is snow on the ground, then you are arguing for a subjective position. i.e. the evidence for the snow is subjective, personal experience.
If you argue that Jone's view there is snow on the ground and Smith's view there is no snow on the ground are equally valid views, you are arguing for a relative position. Please note, there really are people who believe such things. Most often, they seem to be postmodern philosophers, such as Laurie Calhoun -- who famously proposed that the fact a giraffe is taller than an ant was not an objective fact at all, but rather an article of faith that could vary from culture to culture. Again, postmodernists have proposed such things as witchcraft is the epistemic equal of Newtonian physics, or that the laws of quantum mechanics are only valid from a "Eurocentric" and "bourgeois" point of view. These are all examples of genuine relativism.
If you argue that there is no snow on the ground because -- despite the fact there really is snow on the ground -- you just don't like snow (so you deny there is any on the ground), then you are being biased.
Subjective, relative, biased. They do not mean precisely the same thing. Hopefully, this will get you started on the distinctions between them.
Questions? Comments?
___________________
And now, in a futile effort to make it up to you for a boring OP....