CH 4 (Reasons for Belief and Doubt)
slogans
-catchy, memorable phrases -a persuasive technique for ads -they get our attention, engender appealing emotions/concepts, associate them /w products or companies -slogans often embed temselves in our brains & get us to feel that one product brand is better than another
What are two more telling indicators, beyond the minimal prerequisites, that someone is an expert?
1.) Reputation among peers (as reflected in the opinions of others in the same field, relevant prestigious awards and positions of authority) 2.) Professional accomplishments -these 2 indicators are more helpful b/c they're very likely to be correlated /w the intellectual qualities expected in true experts
identification
-a persuasive technique -many ads persuade by inviting the consumer to identify /w attractive ppl or groups. Most ads featuring celebrity endorsements use this ploy. -The idea is to get you to identify s strongly /w a celebrity that you feel his/her product choices are your preferred choices
Ways to exercise reasonable skepticism toward the news media:-consider whether the report conflicts /w what you have good reasons to believe, A report that conflicts /w other reports that you believe are reliable or /w facts you already know is not trustworthy. A report that conflicts with expert opinion should not be accepted -look for reporter slanting -consider the source -check for missing info -look for false emphasis (the size of headlines, position of stories, order facts are presented all can give unmerited emphasis to a story or some of its claims) -check alternative news sources to see if the news you're getting is complete and so you aren't ;listening to/reading sources that agree w you (avoid confirmation bias)
-consider whether the report conflicts /w what you have good reasons to believe, A report that conflicts /w other reports that you believe are reliable or /w facts you already know is not trustworthy. A report that conflicts with expert opinion should not be accepted -look for reporter slanting -consider the source -check for missing info -look for false emphasis (the size of headlines, position of stories, order facts are presented all can give unmerited emphasis to a story or some of its claims) -check alternative news sources to see if the news you're getting is complete and so you aren't ;listening to/reading sources that agree w you (avoid confirmation bias)
weasel words
-persuasive technique used by ads -when advertisers want to appear to make a strong claim but avoid blatant lying/deception, they use weasel words -they alter down a claim in subtle ways, just enough to ensure that it is technically true but superficially false -ex: may, some, up to, as many as, reportedly, possibly, virtually, many, seem, perhaps
According to the text, what has historically been the most prevalent form of the appeal to authority?
-regarding of non-experts as experts; has lead to disastrous results -ex: Political, religious tribal, and cultural leaders of then have been designated as authorities not b/c they knew the facts and could correctly judge the evidence, but b/c culture, tradition or whim dictated that they be regarded as authorities. When these ''authorities'' spoke, ppl listened/believed--then went to war, persecuted nonbelievers and undertook other ill conceived projects
What are 3 most serious mistakes we make when we deal with evidence?
-resisting contrary evidence -looking for confirming evidence -preferring available evidence
expert
-someone who is more knowledgeable in a particular subject area or field than most others are -they provide us with reasons for believing a claim b/c, in their specialty area, they are more likely to be right than we are -they are more likely to be right b/c they have access to more info on the subject than we do and they're better @ judging that info than we are
What is background information?
-the huge collection of very well supported beliefs that we all rely on to inform our actions/choices -a great deal of this lore consists of basic facts about everyday things, beliefs based on very good evidence (Including own personal observations & excellent authority) & justified claims that would regard as common sense/knowledge.
How does the fallacious appeal to authority happen?
-we might find ourselves disregarding this rule of thumb: Just b/c someone is an expert in one field, he or she is not necessarily an expert in another field. Outside their field, they aren't experts -by regarding a non-expert as an expert
Reasons to be cautious when it comes to advertising
1.) ads have a reputation for and history of misleading msgs. There are ads that make dubious/false claims, use fallacious arguments, and employ psychological tricks to manipulate consumers 2.) Remember the purpose of ads is to sell something. Though ads can be truthful/helpful, its primary function is not to provide objective/accurate info to consumers. Advertisers will tell you good things about their products but are unlikely to mention all the bad. Their main job is not to help consumers make fully informed, rational choices about available options.Advertising is advertising, it's not intended to be an impartial search for facts or a program of consumer protection.
What are the 2 minimal prerequisites for being considered an expert?
1.) education and training from reputable institutions or programs in the relevant field (usually evidenced by certificate) 2.) experience in making reliable judgement in the field (Unfortunately, ppl can have the education/experience and still not know what they're talking about in the field in question. So these don't guarantee the possession of true expertise)
What critical thinking principle should we follow when claims conflict--that is, a claim conflicts wit other claims we have good reasons to believe?
If a claim conflicts /w other claims we have good reasons to accept, we have good grounds for doubting it. (When 2 claims conflict, they can't both be true. At least 1 of them has to be false) -this is called consistency
When is it reasonable to accept the evidence provided by personal experience?
It s reasonable to accept the evidence provided by personal experience only if there's no good reason to doubt it -That is, if we have no good reasons to doubt what our personal experiences reveal to be true, then we're justified in believing it. This means that if our faculties are working properly and our use of them is unimpeded by anything in our environment, we're entitled to accept what our personal experiences tell us
In general, are humans good at estimating probabilities?
NO -we often misjudge coincidences. Many of us often think that an even is simply too improbable to be a coincidence, that something must definitely be going on-such as paranormal or supernatural. We forget that amazing coincidences occur all the time and must occur according to statistic laws - We also commit the gambler's fallacy, in which we think that previous events can affect probabilities in the random event at hand
True or False. Personal experiences, though generally reliable, is not infallible. Under certain circumstances, our senses, memory and judgement can't be trusted.
True
True or False. Reporters may introduce inaccuracies, biases and personal opinion. They can slant the news by using loaded language, manipulating the writing, leaving out/in certain details, putting the facts in conspicuous/inconspicuous positions, inserting arguments and personal opinions, dramatizing parts of the story, and appealing to reader's prejudices
True
Describe how expectation can be a reason to doubt the reliability of personal experience
We often perceive what we expect to perceive regardless of whether there's anything there to detect (expectation bias). This is often the result of the constructive tendencies of the mind. -Our tendency to sometimes perceive things that are not really there is pronounced when the stimuli are vague/ambiguous -ex: We may perceive formless stimuli (clouds, smoke, blurry photo, yet think we observe very distinct images or sounds. We may see/hear what we expect to see/hear. Or the mere suggestion of what we should perceive helps us perceive it.
What degree of probability should we assign to a claim that conflicts with our background information?
We would normally assign a LOW probability to any claim that conflicts /w a great deal of our background information
When an unsupported claim doesn't conflict /w what we already know, we are often justified in believing it b/c _____.
it comes from experts
According to the text, other than reporters and editors themselves, what is the foremost factor influencing the quality of new reporting?
money-the drive for profits in news organizations. -A news organization makes money from selling opportunities for other companies to advertise to the news outlet's audience. The bigger the audience, the more money that is brought in. So to attract a greater audience, the news is often diluted /w lifestyle, celebrity and entertainment features, deemphasizing serious reporting on business, govt, , the country and the world.
What is this an example of? Subjects who doubt ESP accurately recalled both kinds of evidence. But the true believers--the subjects who already believed in ESP--remembered both kinds of evidence as proving ESP.
resisting contrary evidence
Memories are especially susceptible to distortion if they are formed during times of ___, which helps to explain why the memories of people who witness crimes or alleged ghosts are often so unreliable.
stress
What is the purpose of advertisements? How well they do their job is measured by ____.
to sell products/services, promote causes or candidates, or alter attitudes and opinions. -How well ads do there job is measured by money
may, some, up to, as many as, reportedly, possibly, virtually, many, seem, perhaps....are examples of what?
weasel words
availability error
when we rely on evidence not b/c it's trustworthy but b/c it's memorable or striking--that is, psychologically available. -in such cases we put stock in evidence that psychologically impressive or persuasive, not necessarily logically acceptable
What is this an example of? Believers in the paranormal, when confronted /w evidence counting against their beliefs, simply refuse to accept it.
resisting contrary evidence
expectation bias
seeing what you want to see
appeal to authority
the fallacy of relying on the opinion of someone deemed to be an expert who is in fact NOT an expert
You toss an unbiased coin 6x in a row and land on tails each time. The odds that the coin will land on tails on the 7th toss is 50-50. The coin doesn't remember previous tosses. To think otherwise is to commit _____.
the gambler's fallacy
gambler's fallacy
the mistake of thinking that previous events can affect probabilities in the random event at hand
Our tendency to sometimes perceive things that are not really there is pronounced when _______.
the stimuli are vague or ambiguous
Personal experiences arise from _______.
our senses, our memory, and our judgement involved in those faculties
Explain how passive reporting can can distort our picture of the world?
- passive reporting is when the news is handed down to reporters by spokesperson/public relations experts hired by govt/corporations who to get their own version of the fact into the media. In these situations, reporters may report only what they're told at press conferences or in press releases. The result is canned news that's slanted toward the views of ppl who supply it.
Explain how the decision to not cover certain stories can distort our picture of the world
-For a variety of reasons (often b/c they deem it too complex or boring for the audience) ,publishers/editors/producers/reporters, may decide not to cover certain stories of specific aspects of stories. Too often though, decisions to not cover something can lead the public to conclude that there is nothing happening when in fact something very important is transpiring
What is the connection between availability error and hasty generalization?
-If we're in the habit of basing our judgment on evidence that's merely psychologically available (memorable/striking), we will frequently commit the error known as hasty generalization -We're guilty of hasty generalization when we draw a conclusion about a whole group based on an inadequate sample -We fall into this trap when we assert something like ''Honda civics are pieces of junk. I owned one for 3 months and it gave me nothing but trouble.''
What are 3 obvious and disconcerting facts about ads
-all advertising is designed to influence, persuade, or manipulate us -to an impressive degree and in many ways, it does successfully influence, persuade or manipulate us -we are often oblivious-or in outright denial-about how effectively ads influence, persuade or manipulate us
What are some persuasive techniques used by advertisers?
-identification -slogans -misleading comparisons -weasel words
According to the text, what are three main factors that can give us good reason to doubt the reliability of personal experience?
1.) if our perceptual powers are impaired or impeded(stress, injury, distraction, emotional upset, etc), we have reasons to doubt them. Also, our perception/memory are constructive, which means that what we perceive and remember is to some degree fabricated by our minds so might not be accurate. 2.) expectation bias-->Expectation can distort perception. We often perceive exactly what we expect to perceive regardless of whether there's anything there to detect 3) innumeracy-->Our limited abilities in judging probability. We misjudge coincidences; we think that an even is simply too improbable to be a coincidence, that something must definitely be going on. We also commit the gambler's fallacy, in which we think that previous events can affect probabilities in the random event at hand. We shouldn't rely solely on intuitive sense in evaluating probabilities. Relying on intuition in assessing probabilities is not a reason to trust the assessment but to doubt it.
Under what 3 circumstances should we suspect that an expert may be biased?
1.) when an expert is being paid by special interest groups or companies to render an opinion 2.) when the expert expresses very strong belief in a claim even though there's no evidence to support ir 3.) when the expert stands to gain financially from the actions/policies that he/she supports
Availability error is very likely at work in many controversies regarding environmental hazards. B/c the alleged hazard and its effects can be easily/vividly imagined and the scientific data on the issue are not so concrete/memorable, the imagined danger can provoke a public scare even though the scare is completely unwarranted. Many environmental hazards are real, but concluding that they exist solely on the basis of scary thoughts is to commit the availability error
Availability error is very likely at work in many controversies regarding environmental hazards. B/c the alleged hazard and its effects can be easily/vividly imagined and the scientific data on the issue are not so concrete/memorable, the imagined danger can provoke a public scare even though the scare is completely unwarranted. Many environmental hazards are real, but concluding that they exist solely on the basis of scary thoughts is to commit the availability error
What principle should we observe when a claim conflicts with expert opinion?
If a claim conflicts with expert opinion, we have good reasons to doubt it
Chief among possible reasons to doubt the opinion of experts is ____. (describe what the missing word means too)
Bias -when experts are biased, they are motivated by something other than the search for truth, perhaps financial gain, loyalty to cause or professional ambition
Experts are familiar with established facts and existing data in their field and know how to properly evaluate that info. Essentially, this means that they have a handle on the info & know how to assess the evidence/arguments for particular claims involving that info.
Experts are familiar with established facts and existing data in their field and know how to properly evaluate that info. Essentially, this means that they have a handle on the info & know how to assess the evidence/arguments for particular claims involving that info.
Describe how impairment can be a reason to doubt the reliability of personal experience
If our perceptual powers are impaired or impeded, we have reasons to doubt them. -if our senses our debilitated b/c we're sick, injured, tired, stressed out, drugged, drunk, distracted or when situations interfere /w sensory input, such as when our environment is too dark, bright, noisy, hazy, then the risk of misperception is high, which gives us reasons to doubt the trustworthiness of what we experience -Memory is affected by many of them same factors that interfere /w accurate perception -Also, our perception/memory are constructive, which means that what we perceive and remember is to some degree fabricated by our minds so might not be accurate.
What is pareidolia?
It is a kind of illusion in which ppl find meaning in random patterns ex: We may perceive formless stimuli (clouds, smoke, blurry photo, yet think we observe very distinct images or sounds. We may see/hear what we expect to see/hear. Or the mere suggestion of what we should perceive helps us perceive it.
Many of the unsupported claims we encounter are in ____ & _____.
News reports and advertisements
Other possible reasons to doubt the opinion of experts -expert is guilty of simple factual/formal errors -expert's claims conflict /w what you have good reasons to believe -expert doesn't adequately support his/her assertions -expert's writing contains logical contradictions or inconsistent statements -expert doesn't treat opposing views fairly -expert is strongly biased, emotional or dismissive -expert relies on outdated info -most other experts in the same field disagree
Other possible reasons to doubt the opinion of experts -expert is guilty of simple factual/formal errors -expert's claims conflict /w what you have good reasons to believe -expert doesn't adequately support his/her assertions -expert's writing contains logical contradictions or inconsistent statements -expert doesn't treat opposing views fairly -expert is strongly biased, emotional or dismissive -expert relies on outdated info -most other experts in the same field disagree
How can editors, reporters, and producers alter our perception of the news by playing certain aspects up/down.
TV and radio broadcasts can make trivial news items seem more momentous just by making it the lead off story in the broadcast, or on the front page of newspaper. Or they can make an important story seem inconsequential by devoting only 15 secs for it near the end of broadcast or on pg 22 of newspaper
True of False. It is not reasonable to believe a claim when there is no good reason for doing so. We should, instead, SUSPEND JUDGEMENT
True
True or False. Any opinion that an expert proffers outside his/her field is no more authoritative than those of non-experts.
True
True or False. Belief is a matter of degree and probability
True
True or False. Deliberately or unconsciously, editors/reporters may skew their reporting so as not to offend their advertisers, their audience, or their stockholders. They may also moderate their reporting to keep their sources of information open There may also be temptations to craft inoffensive or watered-down stories to please the source
True
True or False. Issues involving moral, social, or political questions we often don't want experts to settle for us ( & in most cases the expert can't settle them for us). This is b/c we want to provide our own final answers to such questions b/c the questions are important and the answers we give help define who we are. We may draw heavily on the analyses/arguments provided by experts though.
True
True or False. It is always possible that conflicting claim is true and some of our background info is unfounded. So many times, it's reasonable to examine a conflicting claim more closely. If we find that it has no good reasons in its favor, that it is not credible, we may reject it. If we discover that there are strong reasons for accepting the new claim, we may need to revise our background info.
True
True or False. Since we cannot be knowledgeable in every field, we must rely on experts. But good critical thinkers are careful about expert opinion, guiding their use of experts by some common sense principles: (1) If a claim conflicts with expert opinion, we have good reasons to doubt it (2)When the experts disagree about a claim, we have good reasons to doubt it
True
True or False. Some advertisements may make comparisons that are vague or have an exaggeration (puffery), which is regarded in ad law as a hype that few ppl take seriously. This is an example of misleading comparisons
True
True or False. Someone who knows the lore of a field but cannot evaluate the reliability of a claim is no expert.
True
True or False. What good scientists do is not try to confirm their hypothesis, but try to disconfirm their hypothesis.
True
True or false. Although our background info is generally trustworthy, it is not infallible. We should, thus, be willing to reexamine background beliefs that we have doubts about and to be open to reasonable doubts when they arise
True
True or false. Being taken by the availability error can lead to serious misjudgements about the risks involved in various situations. For instance, some ppl believe that air travel is more dangerous than many other modes of transportation, so they shun travel by airplane in favor of the car. Their conclusion is based on nothing more than a few vivid media reports of tragic airplane crashes. But research shows that per mile travel, flying is far safer than car. That is, there are plenty of less vivid/memorable (that is, psychologically unavailable) things that are much more dangerous than air travel.
True
True or false. It's not reasonable to accept a claim if there's good reason to doubt it.
True
What principle should guide our judgements about advertising?
We generally have good reason to doubt advertising claims and to be wary of advertising's persuasive powers -This means that the most reasonable response to ads is a degree of suspicion/wariness.
What is the human tendency to resist contrary evidence?
We try to resist evidence that goes against our cherished beliefs. We may deny evidence, or ignore it, or reinterpret it so it fits better with our prejudices -this thwarts knowledge and stunts understanding
What principle should we observe when the experts disagree about a claim?
When the experts disagree about a claim, we have good reasons to doubt it
How can critical thinkers counteract confirmation bias?
When we evaluate claims, we should look for disconfirming as well as confirming evidence. Doing so requires a conscious effort to consider not only the info that supports what you want to believe but also the info that conflicts /w it.
With conflicting claims, you're not justified in believing either one of them until you resolve the conflict. If the competing claims are reports of personal observations, you can often decide between them by making further observations. Many times, however, sorting out conflicting claims require deeper inquiry. You may also need to do research to see what evidence exists for each of the claims. In the best case scenario, you may quickly discover that one of the claims is not credible b/c it comes from an unreliable source.
With conflicting claims, you're not justified in believing either one of them until you resolve the conflict. If the competing claims are reports of personal observations, you can often decide between them by making further observations. Many times, however, sorting out conflicting claims require deeper inquiry. You may also need to do research to see what evidence exists for each of the claims. In the best case scenario, you may quickly discover that one of the claims is not credible b/c it comes from an unreliable source.
What is the remedy for resisting opposing evidence
a commitment to examine critically our favorite claim--which means trying our best to be even-handed in scrutinizing the evidence we like and the evidence we don't
confirmation bias
a phenomenon in which we seek out and use only confirming evidence
What is this an example of? You vote to convict a murder suspect b/c he looks menacing not b/c the evidence points to his guilt. Or you decide a Honda civic is an unsafe vehicle b/c you saw one get smashed in a highway accident.
availability error
our well confirmed stock of knowledge -it includes all sciences and the encyclopedia -does not mean common sense
background information
How can reporters deliberately make themselves part of the story?
by editorializing(make comments or express opinions rather than just report the news) as the story is being reported and trying to exhibit attitudes common in the community, offering subtle value judgement that the audience is likely to approve of
Our perception/memory are ____, which means that what we perceive and remember is to some degree fabricated by our minds.
constructive
What is the most reasonable attitude toward a claim that conflicts /w our background information?
if a claim conflicts with your background information, you have good reasons to doubt it. -other things being equal, the more background information the claim conflicts with, the more reason we have to doubt it -this can be called conservatism
What should we do when confronted with a claim that is not quite dubious enough to summarily discard yet not worthy of complete acceptance?
if there's a claim that's neither worthy of acceptance nor deserving of outright rejection, we should proportion our belief to the evidence -this is called HUME'S PRINCIPLE OR PROBABILISM -the more evidence a claim has in its favor, the stronger our belief in it should be -weak evidence for a claim warrants weak belief; strong evidence for a claim warrants strong belief. The strength of our belief should vary across this spectrum as the evidence dictates -it's irrational if you have a strong belief in something even though the evidence is weak and also if you have a weak belief in something even though the evidence is strong
