There is one seemingly fatal flaw in that interpretation, you are placing the biases and information at the same level in the hierarchy, more accurately the interpretation of the evidence comes after the biases. What may in fact be information to contradict the biases cannot be seen as CD if the biased interpretation of the information is consistent with the bias, the person in this circumstance does not hold two things to be true simultaneously or where convenient, but has one conclusion from a true fact interpreted through a biased model.
For instance, a woman may believe that her husband is not cheating despite this being false, but her bias to believe things that feel comfortable over what she has epistemic reason to believe causes her not to have CD, but to have a single conclusion that is false because of her biases.
Here an outside observer without her biases will notice the contradiction, but it cannot be said that she is suffering from CD.
For instance, a woman may believe that her husband is not cheating despite this being false, but her bias to believe things that feel comfortable over what she has epistemic reason to believe causes her not to have CD, but to have a single conclusion that is false because of her biases.
Here an outside observer without her biases will notice the contradiction, but it cannot be said that she is suffering from CD.
.
