When most of us “research” an issue, what we are actually doing is: •formulating an initial opinion the first time we hear about something, •evaluating everything we encounter after that through that lens of our gut instinct, •finding reasons to think positively about the portions of the narrative that support or justify our initial opinion, •and finding reasons to discount or otherwise dismiss the portions that detract from it.

Wouldn’t that not just be confirmation bias? There is nothing scientific about that...

here’s an archived link of the article if anyone wants to read it