All valid parts of BS detectors, John. Glad I used "for example,"
since there are so many possibilities. David
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:26 PM, john g marr <jmarr_at_unm.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>
Received on Tue May 24 2011 - 20:32:55 EDT