Re: Bill Clinton: Create Internet agency

On Tue, 24 May 2011, David H. Rothman wrote:

> Facts and BS-detector-development ...

  Exactly. Nothing "patronizing" about either.

> some important elements of BS-detection can be objectively settled 
> upon--for example, the need to consider an "information" source's 
> self-interests, affiliations, other prejudices, and past track record.

  That stuff might be difficult to convey objectively because it is 
"personalized" [focused on the source rather than the information], but 
the idea that one should consider all the possibilities of why something 
is being said is certainly useful. Also, something is needed to assist 
patrons (particularly students and "citizen scholars") to evaluate their 
own self-interests, affiliations, prejudices, and past track records.

  One approach would be to present some depersonalized "BS-detectors" and 
focus on getting people to look at how something is said or judged, that 
is, to avoid the following [for example]:

  Sweeping generalizations: statements that disregard possible exceptions;

  Loaded statements or questions: more than one premise in the form of a 
single statement or question;

  Appeal to law: an argument which implies that legislation is a moral 
imperative;

  Argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it has not 
been proven false or cannot be proven false;

  False dilemma: two alternative statements are held to be the only 
possible options, when in reality there are more;

  Ad hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument, and
  Appeal to emotion (fear, flattery, pity, ridicule, spite, wishful 
thinking): where an argument is made by manipulating emotions, rather than 
by using logical reasoning;

  False attribution: presenting an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, 
biased, fabricated, or otherwise questionable source in absolute support 
of an argument (includes quoting out of context);

  Framing: using a too-narrow approach and description of the situation or 
issue;

  Confirmation bias: searching for or interpreting information in a way 
that confirms ones preconceptions;

  Self-serving bias: evaluating ambiguous information in a way beneficial 
to ones personal interests.

  Reification: treating an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if 
it were a concrete, real "fact", i.e., treating as a "real thing" 
something which is merely an idea;

  Cherry picking: emphasizing specific data that seems to confirm a 
particular position while ignoring related data that may contradict that 
position;

  Red herring: an argument in response to another argument which does not 
address the original issue;

  Guilt by association: arguing that because two things are the same 
because they share a property;

  Appeal to authority: assuming a statement is true because of the position 
or authority of the person asserting it;

  Straw man: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's 
position.

Cheers!

jgm

  John G. Marr
  Cataloger
  CDS, UL
  Univ. of New Mexico
  Albuquerque, NM 87131
  jmarr_at_unm.edu
  jmarr_at_flash.net


     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.