If the investigative material is actually rather good, and way better than I initially guessed at, then I wonder where the discrepancy between my initial judgment versus my later investigation came from.
It's quite easy to convince a person that's ignorant of something that isn't true. Your argument that you were ignorant before you looked at one-sided investigative material doesn't make you a trustworthy source.
Were I the victim of some sort of bias before I started to investigate more thoroughly? Why were I so quick to judge, emotionally, at a point in time where I didn't have any knowledge about whether high quality studies existed on the topic or not?
You didn't reason clearly about the subject. If you think there a case with good evidence and you instead used "Je Suis Charlie", that's a major blunder.
Not putting in your best effort to make your case protects you from falsifying your belief.
After the terrorist attacks at Charlie Hebdo, conspiracy theories quickly arose about who was behind the attacks.
People who are critical to the west easily swallow such theories while pro-vest people just as easily find them ridiculous.
I guess we can agree that the most rational response would be to enter a state of aporia until sufficient evidence is at hand.
Yet very few people do so. People are guided by their previous understanding of the world, when judging new information. It sounds like a fine Bayesian approach for getting through life, but for real scientific knowledge, we can't rely on *prior* reasonings (even though these might involve Bayesian reasoning). Real science works by investigating evidence.
So, how do we characterise the human tendency to jump to conclusions that have simply been supplied by their sense of normativity. Is their a previously described bias that covers this case?