From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/: A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
Appeal to popularity
A claim may be accepted simply because many people believe it to be true. The especially happens with claims that people have favorable emotions to. Sometimes people may agree to one of these claims because they have see it accepted before by other people and sometimes they want it to be true.
For example, there is an urban legend that says, "Daddy Long Legs are the most poisonous spiders, except they don't bite because their mouths are too small to do so." This incorrect claim was believed at a summer camp I attended because so many people were claiming that it was true. The more people stated it, the more people believed it. Also, this claim is appealing to emotions. Spiders are thought by some to be scary, gross, and ugly. Because many people feel a revulsion to them, they feel there must be something wrong or dangerous about them.
Another example, the people in this commercial each have their own personalized Dell computers and they all look happy. Because I like the look of the commercial and the song (emotions) and all the people in the commercial like Dells, I should get one too. This example is a lot more subtle, but the fallacy is definitely still there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCwKndz41P4
Straw Man
This happens when Person A is defending something and Person B exaggerates or miss represents Person A's position and refutes it. In reality, Person B is not refuting Person A's position but a distorted version of it. Therefore, Person B isn't really proving Person A wrong. For example this conversation:
Lucy: I hope we have snow day today.
Ted: Why don't you ever want to go to school?! Don't you want to go somewhere in life?
Lucy: Of course I do, but I don't want to spend all my time in class.
Here, both Lucy and Ted miss represented each other's positions rather than arguing their actual point.
This clip is another example. If you turn off the sound and just watch the images and read the words, the message is very negative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmyCyxD1lM
However, it is also very misleading. For example, the ad claims that Scott Brown wants to "deny rape victims care." (time 0:20, text at bottom right.) Although Scott Brown did, at one point, vote for an amendment to avoid forcing Catholic hospitals to provide abortion or contraception based on their religious beliefs, he never voted to neglect rape victims. He voted to allow hospitals to deny one certain kind of care. Even when this amendment failed, Brown still voted for the underlying bill, even when another Republican did not, which suggests that the amendment was not terribly important to him anyway. (information taken from http://m.factcheck.org/2010/01/bay-state-battle/ )
Appeal to Emotion
This is usually when a claim appeals to the senses: sight, sound, taste, touch, or smell, and makes the knower feel a certain way which causes them to accept the claim. For example, if something makes you happy or amused, you are more likely to believe that what it says is true.
For example, in elementary school, health teachers help students feel strongly opposed to smoking. They associate it things with negative images, such as cancerous lungs, rotted teeth, yellow skin robotic voices, like the voices of people who have had to have their voice boxes removed, and gross smells. These images, sounds and smells help students feel negatively about smoking, which health teachers hope will cause the students not to smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeKzE1mahNs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdcE0AKi_JU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMmcMK_3Ao
Each of these commercials appeals to the senses. The first one is engaging, as the emotions are very strong. I want to know what will happen next. It is also easy to relate to, as many children have a strong connection to their mothers. Finally, it takes an everyday task and puts it in a new light. This commercial drew in my emotions and focus, showed me an aspect of life in a new light, then made me laugh. Because it made me feel good at the end, I want to buy the product.
The second one is also engaging and funny.
The third is easy to relate to. The boy's passion and hope are also very positive emotions that make me like the product.
These commercials each take their audiences' existing emotions then sort of stretch them out and point them in their product's direction.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
How did you react to your results? Were you surprised? Angry or hurt? Pleased? Discuss what you felt and why you think you felt what you did.
I wasn't really surprised. When I was taking the test I could guess what the results would be. I feel like I could have done even "better" if I had concentrated more. I took this test before, after reading Blink, and got slightly different results that I was completely happy with. I think that I don't want to be racist at all, so I was happy with the results that said I had no preference.
Do you believe that your test results say something about you that you should pay attention to? Why or why not?
This time I think the test results had more to do with my confusion over the method of taking the test than my actual feelings. I had a hard time getting used to the test at the beginning. I also think that it is difficult to change underlying biases. I think that even if the test did show drastic results, it would be very difficult to change the way I subconsciously feel about a certain thing. All I can do is work on my conscious behavior.
Do you think that these tests are valid? When you first saw your results, did you question or accept the tests' validity?
I did question the validity of the test the first time I took it, even though I was content with my results. It seemed like a set up: the first "round" white was on the left, and black was on the right. The second round good was on the left and bad was on the right. The third round, black and good was on the right and white and bad were on the left. This was weird because I was used to having good on the left, so I picked the "e" key instead of the "i" key not because I was bias, but because I was trained to the test a certain way.
Give examples of the cultural messages that many support attitudes linking a dominant group in your nation or culture with "good" or "superior" attributes and a subordinate group with "bad" or "inferior" ones. Are these attitudes generalizations that can be called stereotypes? How can generalizations be distinguished from stereotypes?
Saying that African Americans are poor or that Native Americans are really spiritual and have a strong connection to nature are two cultural messages that I often hear. This message makes African Americans seem inferior and Native Americans seem superior. Yes, I think these can be called stereotypes. Sometimes, generalizations are different than stereotypes in that when people generalize, they are trying to be more constructive and stereotypes are more destructive/derogatory. For example, I someone generalized that most Mexicans like spicy food, they might use the generalization when preparing a meal for, say, a Mexican exchange student. A stereotype, such as, "All Irishmen are drunks," is very destructive and would not help anyone.
If some of our consciously held beliefs, attitudes, and values are undermined by what Gladwell calls rapid cognition (others call this intuitive thinking or even gut feelings), what do you suggest we can do to combat jumping to (false) conclusions?
This is extremely difficult to do and I think almost not worth it. We could try to train our subconscious to believe what we consciously believe by watching movies, reading books, listen to music, traveling, or talking to people which support and who believe what we want to support and believe.
I wasn't really surprised. When I was taking the test I could guess what the results would be. I feel like I could have done even "better" if I had concentrated more. I took this test before, after reading Blink, and got slightly different results that I was completely happy with. I think that I don't want to be racist at all, so I was happy with the results that said I had no preference.
Do you believe that your test results say something about you that you should pay attention to? Why or why not?
This time I think the test results had more to do with my confusion over the method of taking the test than my actual feelings. I had a hard time getting used to the test at the beginning. I also think that it is difficult to change underlying biases. I think that even if the test did show drastic results, it would be very difficult to change the way I subconsciously feel about a certain thing. All I can do is work on my conscious behavior.
Do you think that these tests are valid? When you first saw your results, did you question or accept the tests' validity?
I did question the validity of the test the first time I took it, even though I was content with my results. It seemed like a set up: the first "round" white was on the left, and black was on the right. The second round good was on the left and bad was on the right. The third round, black and good was on the right and white and bad were on the left. This was weird because I was used to having good on the left, so I picked the "e" key instead of the "i" key not because I was bias, but because I was trained to the test a certain way.
Give examples of the cultural messages that many support attitudes linking a dominant group in your nation or culture with "good" or "superior" attributes and a subordinate group with "bad" or "inferior" ones. Are these attitudes generalizations that can be called stereotypes? How can generalizations be distinguished from stereotypes?
Saying that African Americans are poor or that Native Americans are really spiritual and have a strong connection to nature are two cultural messages that I often hear. This message makes African Americans seem inferior and Native Americans seem superior. Yes, I think these can be called stereotypes. Sometimes, generalizations are different than stereotypes in that when people generalize, they are trying to be more constructive and stereotypes are more destructive/derogatory. For example, I someone generalized that most Mexicans like spicy food, they might use the generalization when preparing a meal for, say, a Mexican exchange student. A stereotype, such as, "All Irishmen are drunks," is very destructive and would not help anyone.
If some of our consciously held beliefs, attitudes, and values are undermined by what Gladwell calls rapid cognition (others call this intuitive thinking or even gut feelings), what do you suggest we can do to combat jumping to (false) conclusions?
This is extremely difficult to do and I think almost not worth it. We could try to train our subconscious to believe what we consciously believe by watching movies, reading books, listen to music, traveling, or talking to people which support and who believe what we want to support and believe.
Crazy Captain's Game
Should a hypothesis (a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical consequences, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis) be rejected by a single counter-example?
No, I don't think a hypothesis should be rejected by a single counter-example. I actually thought about this during the game. I noticed that some of the people who discussed their incorrect hypothesizes had actually ignored some of the data in order to create their hypothesis fit. For example, when Bryan and I were the captains, someone said that their hypothesis had been that only words with smaller words in them would be accepted onto the boat. This hypothesis fit with every word except the first word. The person had formed a hypothesis that wasn't supported by every piece of data. I think that this is a reasonable thing to do. Whenever humans are involved in an experiment, there is human error. Bryan and I could have made a mistake and wrongly accepted the first word. As long as most of the data fits a hypothesis, it is valid.
Can a hypothesis ever be proven? How much supporting evidence would be required?
The more evidence that supports a hypothesis, the more it is proven and the more likely it is to be correct. Therefore, it would take a lot of evidence in order for us to be absolutely positive that a hypothesis is true. I think a hypothesis can be accepted if multiple professionals and normal people perform the experiment with the same positive results. At that point, I would accept it as proven.
No, I don't think a hypothesis should be rejected by a single counter-example. I actually thought about this during the game. I noticed that some of the people who discussed their incorrect hypothesizes had actually ignored some of the data in order to create their hypothesis fit. For example, when Bryan and I were the captains, someone said that their hypothesis had been that only words with smaller words in them would be accepted onto the boat. This hypothesis fit with every word except the first word. The person had formed a hypothesis that wasn't supported by every piece of data. I think that this is a reasonable thing to do. Whenever humans are involved in an experiment, there is human error. Bryan and I could have made a mistake and wrongly accepted the first word. As long as most of the data fits a hypothesis, it is valid.
Can a hypothesis ever be proven? How much supporting evidence would be required?
The more evidence that supports a hypothesis, the more it is proven and the more likely it is to be correct. Therefore, it would take a lot of evidence in order for us to be absolutely positive that a hypothesis is true. I think a hypothesis can be accepted if multiple professionals and normal people perform the experiment with the same positive results. At that point, I would accept it as proven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
