Many product testers and evaluators will assert that they approach every product test in an identically neutral manner.
 
The problem with this assertion is that in stating this, a given tester is committing the pretended neutrality fallacy, which is a fallacy that we as imperfect men so often commit!
 
Such a professedly "neutral" tester is assuming that the characteristics and data of a given product are simply a collection of brute facts that can be investigated apart from any influences of the particular world-view or belief commitment on the part of the tester.  Such of course is not the case, as everyone has a presuppositional world-view and truth commitment by which we judge and evaluate all things.

 

This presuppositional bias is evident in us all, because when we examine or talk about a particular body of proofs and comments, there is always an assumed standard by which all other products are measured, which more often than not also happens to be our particular favorite among all available options. Such is the case for any particular tester or evaluator of products.
 
Often the manifestation of this fallacy is that if we put forth a test that ignores a particular individual testers chosen "standard" and instead give our own interpretation of the facts as tested, according to our published standard, often such testers simply cry foul and state "this interpretation of the collection of data does not give any integrity to the process, because the ultimate standard [as THEY see it] was not taken into consideration." 
 
What such testers do not seem realize is that we could of course say the same exact thing about THEIR interpretation.
 
Such folk typically assume that their way of interpreting the data is therefore the ONLY neutral way, and unless we are interpreting it in the same way as they do [I.E. according to THEIR presuppositions and bias] then we are not being good evaluators.  
 
When two people look at data from two opposing world-views or belief commitments, how can such even begin to argue intelligently about the interpretation of the data?
 
Thus, the answer is that NO ONE is truly neutral, but rather we All HOLD to certain presuppositional belief commitments about what is true, and what is our ultimate standard of measure in a given area. For example, my ultimate standard by which I measure all other shooting sports optics is Swarovski. For others it is Zeiss, for others it is Leupold, and for still others it is Bushnell. Knowing the world-view and belief commitments of an individual ahead of time will greatly facilitate an accurate interpretation of a given set of conclusions, as one then has an accurate idea of the starting point used, in order to understand the basis for comparison.

 

At this point the studious reader may then examine our results and compare such to those arrived at by others, and form intelligent and well-informed conclusions by evaluating not only the published data, but more importantly evaluating the internal merits or demerits of the world-view and belief commitments of the individual publisher of data.

 

It is at this stage that we must concede our personal bias, or presuppositional commitment which is a direct result of our own particular world-view and belief commitments in the area of the shooting sports and hunting products, and thus state that all our tests will be done taking such into consideration.