It is such a reoccurring theme as to be a candidate as a principle of “human psychological behavior.”
I continually bring it to the attention of readers because it is so pervasive in all that we humans do. It goes like this:
People see in the information that which matches their model.
We see it again in Keith Kloor’s Discovery Magazine article “The Poisoned Debates between Science, Politics, and Religion.” Here is a link to the full article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/12/27/the-poisoned-debates-between-science-politics-and-religion/#.UPr3E6yKySp
Keith cites multiple examples of how a group’s model of something, like God, governance (played out in politics), or science causes people to see in the information, that which matches the group’s model. This is perhaps a leading cause “poison” in human reasoning.
Being critical of activist atheists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, Keith states that in their exuberant rejection of religion, they attend to only a narrow segment of the religious community and their behavior:
The other big argument waged by a vocal group of prominent scientists involves the assertion that science is incompatible with religion… What’s more, an argument that lumps together the Taliban, the Dali Lama, and Jesus strikes me as rather simplistic. The atheists who frequently disparage religion for all its faults don’t dare acknowledge that it has any redeeming value, or that it provides some meaning for those who can’t (or aren’t yet ready) to derive existential meaning from reason alone.
Keith goes on to report the criticism of Peter Higgs:
What Dawkins does too often is to concentrate his attack on fundamentalists. But there are many believers who are just not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.”
Higgs points is pointing out here out that himself demonstrates the fundamentalist tenancies that Dawkins is so critical of.
The fact that one recognizes and identifies this principle, does not give any leverage in escaloping the principle. That of course, applies to this author too.
Evidence that is can stand as a principle.