CRITICAL THINKING- TEST 3
Using the checkboxes below, indicate what kind of strategy is used in the argument above.
Casual Rebuttal The vast majority of this argument is spent showing how these women without olfactory bulbs (a part of the brain) can smell despite missing the architecture or it. This is a causal argument. It also refutes the expectation that missing this crucial brain architecture for smell would result in the absence of smell. This is a Rebuttal argument.
Explain how the warning sign you noted above is it is present in the discussion (or explain why you chose none of the above).
As we discussed this argument lightly implies that something like "big ergonomics" is trying to hide the knowledge that neck pain is less about your posture and your chairs than it is about getting good sleep, healthy exercise, and reducing stress. However, generally, it would be fair to say none of the above as well. There are certainly are none of the other indicators of bogus science.
Brief Summary
As we discussed, this argument says that lifestyle -- exercise, sleep, and stress -- are the main causal factor in neck pain, not posture.
CONSERVATISM
Being wary of theories that don't conform to well-established scientific truth.
Using the checkboxes below, indicate what kind of strategy is used in the argument above.
Causal Rebuttal Proposal There is definitely a causal argument arguing that neck problems are caused by bad sleep, bad exercise, and stress. To some degree, there is the implication of a proposal argument because the idea is that you should address your neck pain by getting better sleep, more exercise, and decreasing stress. Ultimately, however, the most evident strategy is a rebuttal argument. This argument rejects the theory that posture is a significant contributor to neck pain.
Using the checkboxes below, indicate what kind of strategy is used in the argument above.
Causal Evaluative Rebuttal There is a causal argument -- men with the BRCA2 gene defect are at higher risk for prostate cancer and particularly aggressive prostate cancer. There is also an evaluative argument -- arguing that aggressive testing will prevent the death/prolong the life of these men with BRCA2. Note that these two things together add up to a proposal argument -- aggressive screening for men with BRCA2.
The real cause of your neck pain probably has very little to do with bad posture. If you suffer from neck pain, you're not alone. Spinal pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide and its occurrence has increased dramatically over the past 25 years. While most episodes of neck pain are likely to get better within a few months, half to three-quarters of people who have neck pain will experience repeated episodes of pain. It's often said there are "good and bad postures" and that specific postures can contribute to spinal pain but this belief is not supported by scientific evidence. Indeed, research shows that poor sleep, reduced physical activity and increased stress appear to be more important factors. So despite attempts by health professionals to correct your posture and the use of "ergonomic" chairs, desks, keyboards and other gadgets chances are so-called "lifestyle factors" - such as getting enough sleep, making sure you exercise and keeping stress to a minimum - seem to be more salient in relieving and preventing the pain in your neck. Although beliefs about posture run deep, science is telling a very different story - and there is a strong challenge to the long-assumed role of posture as a cause of neck pain. A recent high-quality study, of more than 1,000 teenagers, for example, showed no statistically significant relationship between spinal posture and neck pain - despite there being easily identifiable postural subgroups in the study, such as those who sat slumped or those who sat upright. So yes, people do sit in positions that vary from person to person, but it appears to have nothing to do with pain. In fact, it appears from this particular study that the adolescent's "posture" has more to do with their mood. In various studies, researchers have followed groups of people who don't have neck pain along with those who only experience occasional neck pain for periods. Some people in these groups developed troublesome neck pain and the researchers looked closely at them. Those with neck pain were found to be getting less quality and quantity of sleep and were working in jobs with high strain. They were also less physically active and had depressed mood. Their bodies are essentially experiencing greater stress and they notice more "muscle tension" in their neck. Importantly, this is all before the pain has even developed. Researchers have found that, even among children as young as nine years old, symptoms such as tiredness and sleep difficulties - along with headaches, abdominal pain and lower mood - were risk factors for both the occurrence and persistence of weekly neck pain when the children were monitored for four years
Claims a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work As we discussed this argument lightly implies that something like "big ergonomics" is trying to hide the knowledge that neck pain is less about your posture and your chairs than it is about getting good sleep, healthy exercise, and reducing stress. However, generally it would be fair to say none of the above as well.
The "Mandela Effect" is what happens when someone has a clear memory of something that never happened in this reality. Many of us — mostly total strangers — remember the exact same events with the exact same details. However, our memories are different from what's in history books, newspaper archives, and so on. This isn't a conspiracy, and we're not talking about "false memories." These parallel realities exist, and we've been "sliding" between them without realizing it. The most famous example is that of the Berenstain Bears, a series of more than 300 children's books, written by Stan and Jan Berenstain, and later continued by their son Mike Berenstain. Many people remember reading these as children as the Berenstein Bears. It seems that at some point, the publisher changed the title, and the usual explanation is that there was still sufficient anti-Semitism in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s that Berenstein was changed to Berenstain to make the title more palatable. Similarly, the story goes that the HBO series Sex and the City had originally been named Sex in the City until the network censors changed it to make it less overtly suggestive of people actually in the act of having sex. Many remember that it was Sex in the City for just the first season, and others remember it as having always been Sex in the City for its entire run, with the change having been made only after the series was completed and so only applying to syndication and reruns. There are a number of popular examples of the Mandela Effect in movies. Everyone seems to remember Humphrey Bogart saying "Play it again, Sam," yet it's a line he never said in Casablanca or any other film. Everyone seems to remember the evil queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs saying "Mirror, mirror, on the wall", a line she never said either (and I bet nobody remembers that her name was Grimhilde). Everyone seems to remember the comedian Sinbad starring as a genie in a cheesy comedy film titled Shazaam, but no such movie exists. Though mainstream science wants to dismiss this phenomenon as false memory, the only real explanation for this is that some of us have an unrevealed ability to slide between parallel universes (. World governments and top scientists suppress this evidence in order to hide the truth about parallel universes to preserve it for weaponization in the future
Claims a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. Evidence is anecdotal. The observation requires a new law of nature in order to accommodate it Just subtly the argument suggests that mainstream science denies the phenomenon. That is a powerful establishment. There are multiple lists of Mandela effects but there is no systematic attempt to track them. They are all just stories about confused memories. That's anecdotal evidence. The explanation about parallel universes requires a significant number of scientific facts to be in evidence that is not. That is requiring or nearly requiring a new law of nature.
Using the checkboxes below, indicate what kind of strategy is used in the argument above.
Definitional Causal This gets close to being a definitional argument. The defined term is of course the "Mandela Effect". This argument doesn't strongly try to prove that the cases it describes are instances of the effect. It is more accurate to say that it uses those instances to prove that the Mandela effect is real. That is a kind of definition argument. It is definitely a causal argument, arguing that moving through parallel universes causes this mismatch between memory and "reality".
Half of the 7.7 billion people living on the planet right now aren't yet able to get online and that's a big problem. Researcher, Merten Reglitz, a philosopher and global ethics lecturer from the University of Birmingham in the UK says internet access should be established as a basic human right that everyone is entitled to. "Internet access is a unique and non-substitutable way for realising fundamental human rights such as free speech and assembly," he writes in a new paper. Going online is now so essential for participating in modern life, doing without it puts people at a serious disadvantage in terms of staying informed, getting their voices heard, realising their fundamental human rights, and much more. What's more, if people aren't able to afford a connection to the internet, then it should be provided to them free of charge, according to Reglitz. "Internet access is no luxury, but instead a moral human right and everyone should have unmonitored and uncensored access to this global medium - provided free of charge for those unable to afford it," says Reglitz. "Without such access, many people lack a meaningful way to influence and hold accountable supranational rule-makers and institutions. These individuals simply don't have a say in the making of the rules they must obey and which shape their life chances." Reglitz points to the Arab Spring of the early 2010s, the #MeToo campaign of recent years, and the documentation of unjustified police violence against African Americans in the US as examples of ways internet access has provided freedom, justice, and safety to marginalized groups. Being online doesn't guarantee these opportunities, Reglitz says, but these particular movements would not have been possible without social media and the ability to distribute and read up on information over the web. Internet access allows people to lead "minimally decent lives", Reglitz writes in his paper - providing something fundamental beyond all the fluffy cat memes and endless Netflix episodes. And while Reglitz acknowledges that the internet can be a source of harm and corruption too - think mass surveillance and cyber-bullying, for instance - he says that in today's world, web access is too important for any people to be going without. Some authorities at least are moving in the right direction, with the Indian state of Kerala declaring universal internet access a human right, and the European Union aiming to get every village and city online with free wireless access by 2020. As Reglitz points out, getting online doesn't require the latest high-speed broadband connections and fastest smartphones - people can still participate even with just the hardware and software basics. "Universal internet access need not cost the earth - accessing politically important opportunities such as blogging, obtaining information, joining virtual groups, or sending and receiving emails does not require the latest information technology," says Reglitz. "Web-capable phones allow people to access these services and public internet provision, such as public libraries, can help get people online where individual domestic access is initially too expensive."
None of the above
TRUE
Epistemic empathy asks a similar thing as empathy in general but in the domain of belief and knowledge.
Fresh-baked bread. Rain falling onto warm soil. Cut grass in the summer. We can relish in these fragrances thanks to a bundle of nerves deep inside each nostril called an olfactory bulb - or so we thought, anyway. Among brain scans from over 1,000 subjects, researchers have now identified a handful of cases where individuals appear to lack this structure. Nevertheless, these people can identify smells surprisingly well. Neurologists from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health in Australia initially stumbled across two strange cases of missing olfactory bulbs while reviewing MRIs for a different study. Since their research required left-handed female volunteers with a sense of smell, the absences stood out as particularly odd, warranting further investigation. The olfactory bulbs, located deep inside most of our skulls, could be described as a pair of upside-down toothbrushes. Their handles reach back into our brain, and their bristles poke into the roof of our nasal cavities. The purpose of this bulb of sensory nerves is to catch volatile particles floating about in the air we inhale and send messages into various parts of the brain, including sections responsible for memory and emotion. The result can fill us with pleasure or disgust, summoning memories of fear or recollection of grandma's hugs. If this is the olfactory bulb's function, it stands to reason that should it be damaged - or missing altogether - our ability to detect any trace of a scent should be seriously affected. Having now stumbled across two volunteers who had no olfactory bulbs and still seemed to have a sense of smell, neurologists had an opportunity. In spite of what you might think, we humans are pretty good smellers, discriminating between maybe as many as a trillion different odors. And, unlike rats, people can be quizzed on their experiences. So the research team used their unexpected finds as a starting point to hunt down more examples in a massive public collection of MRIs aimed at mapping connections in the human brain. Sifting through 1,113 scans, they uncovered a further three." A pleasant surprise was then finding this in the Human Connectome Project," says neurobiologist Noam Sobel from the Weizmann Institute of Science. "Replication within a publicly available dataset adds a lot of credibility to the finding. This is not just some oddity that shows up only in our hands." The new examples were also all women, with one also being left-handed. It's not at all clear what these biases mean, but the fact that the records all reported they had a sense of smell was startling. To confirm suspicions, the team went back to their original two volunteers and recruited a third woman who lacked olfactory bulbs but also happened to have anosmia - an inability to detect scents. More detailed scans of the volunteers' brains found their entire olfactory bulb structures were indeed diminished. The team concluded that they had to be tiny, if the women had any olfactory bulbs at all. They then gave the women a whiff of 10 odorants and asked them to rate them according to 11 different descriptors. Their results were compared with those taken from 140 other women who all had completely functional olfactory bulbs. The results provided by the two bulb-less women who could still smell were remarkable, but only in that they shouldn't have the ability to smell at all. There was one other curiosity. The descriptors they each provided were eerily similar to one another's. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on, and what - if any - olfactory nerves these women might have retained. But it does reinforce the notion that our brains are capable of doing a lot with very little. "The simplest interpretation of our findings is that these women were born without an olfactory bulb, but thanks to the extreme plasticity of the developing brain, they developed an alternative glomeruli map somewhere else in the brain, not in the olfactory bulb," says Sobel.
Evidence is anecdotal The only real concern here is that with so few cases the evidence is basically anecdotal. With so few participants, it would be reckless to draw substantial conclusions from the data they have.
Describe what kind of evidence would prove the conclusion you've just identified.
I'd really like to see some detailed account of the import of the internet, ideally, some studies demonstrating crucial contributions internet makes to well-being, perhaps a study comparing people at different socioeconomic statuses and measuring well-being comparing those with internet to those without.
Describe what kind of evidence would prove the conclusion you've just identified.
Ideally, you'd be able to show a systematic effect. (Lots of people having this experience.) You'd also need to show that it wasn't a false memory. It would be good if we could find some way to prove the existence of alternative universes. A lot of hard empirical data backed by difficult science.
Brief Summary
Men with the BRCA2 gene mutation should be aggressively screened for prostate cancer despite shortcomings in standard screening procedures.
Using the checkboxes below, indicate what kind of strategy is used in the argument above.
Proposal Evaluation This is a weak proposal argument. There is a significant focus on the evaluation part of the proposal -- the need for the internet for minimally decent lives. However, the causal part is really missing. There is some vague suggestions about how the internet fosters a better life, but no real proof (especially given the proposal).
Describe what kind of evidence would prove the conclusion you've just identified.
The evidence for this would be empirical and require the systematic analysis of a lot more women who are missing the olfactory bulbs.
Explain how the warning sign you noted above is it is present in the discussion (or explain why you chose none of the above).
The only real concern here is that with so few cases the evidence is basically anecdotal. With so few participants, it would be reckless to draw substantial conclusions from the data they have.
Men who have a fault in the BRCA2 gene should have annual blood tests to detect aggressive prostate cancer. After researching the effectiveness of the test, Ros Eeles, who led the study, said: "Our research shows very clearly that men with the BRCA2 gene fault are at increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer and that regular PSA testing could go some way to improving early diagnosis and treatment." The PSA test is done using a small amount of blood to detect raised levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA). Yet, despite its relatively low cost and ease of administering, it is not offered for routine screening in many countries, including the UK. This is because a significant proportion of those testing positive have no disease (a false-positive result), slow-growing cancer that doesn't need treatment, or positive results caused by a relatively benign condition, such as a urinary tract infection. Detecting prostate cancer early is important and saves lives. But many of those identified by the PSA test as having elevated levels of the antigen could potentially undergo painful treatment with significant life-altering side effects, which were unnecessary. Also, up to 15 percent of men with prostate cancer have normal PSA levels (a false-negative result), meaning that many men would receive unwarranted reassurance from this test. Guidelines in most countries, therefore, note that the possible benefits of testing are outweighed by the potential harms of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, making it unsuitable for screening everyone. Men with faults in their BRCA2 gene are, however, five times more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer and at a younger age. More worryingly, this high-risk group is also twice as likely to have a more serious, potentially life-threatening, form of prostate cancer. Faults in the BRCA2 gene are more commonly linked to breast cancer, and this is where it gets its name (Breast Cancer). The gene itself was originally identified by looking at families and groups that showed higher than normal levels of breast cancer. Painstaking research over many years has shown that the gene plays a vital role in repairing breaks in our DNA. When this process does not occur properly, because of problems in the gene, the result is a build up of mutations. This can then lead to cancer-causing changes in the rest of the DNA, and this is why screening for early signs, including the PSA test, becomes more important. While certain groups have a greater chance of carrying particular faults in their DNA, any family could be passing down dangerous changes in BRCA2 through the generations. The PSA test is not reliable enough to be used as a general screening method for prostate cancer. But in men with BRCA2 faults, it does appear to play a vital role and calls for its annual use for these men need to be carefully considered.
The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection None of the above This argument is probably best characterized as showing no bogus science warning signs. (We don't know enough about the study to judge completely, but it is continuing research on a gene that has long been connected to cancer.) You could possibly concern that the PSA tests are right at the limits of detection, but this is a stretch and not the center of the argument.
Explain how the argument strategy that you noted above is present in this argument.
The vast majority of this argument is spent showing how these women without olfactory bulbs (a part of the brain) can smell despite missing the architecture or it. This is a causal argument. It also refutes the expectation that missing this crucial brain architecture for smell would result in the absence of smell. This is a Rebuttal argument.
Explain how the warning sign you noted above is it is present in the discussion (or explain why you chose none of the above).
There are multiple lists of Mandela effects but there is no systematic attempt to track them. They are all just stories about confused memories. That's anecdotal evidence. The explanation about parallel universes requires a significant number of scientific facts to be in evidence that are not. That is requiring or nearly requiring a new law of nature.
Explain how the argument strategy that you noted above is present in this argument.
There is a causal argument -- men with the BRCA2 gene defect are at higher risk for prostate cancer and particularly aggressive prostate cancer . There is also an evaluative argument -- arguing that aggressive testing will prevent the death/prolong the life of these men with BRCA2. Note that these two things together add up to a proposal argument -- aggressive screening for men with BRCA2.
Brief Summary
There is a phenomenon called the Mandela effect -- a mismatch between memory and immediately accessible reality -- exemplified by Berenstain Bears, Sex and the City, "Play it again, Sam", "Mirror, mirror" and "Luke I am your father." It is caused by people sliding between parallel universes that are slightly different from each other but carrying all the memories no matter where they end up.
Explain how the argument strategy that you noted above is present in this argument.
There is definitely a causal argument arguing that neck problems are caused by bad sleep, bad exercise, and stress. To some degree, there is the implication of a proposal argument because the idea is that you should address your neck pain by getting better sleep, more exercise, and decreasing stress. Ultimately, however, the most evident strategy is a rebuttal argument. This argument rejects the theory that posture is a significant contributor to neck pain.
Brief Summary
This argues that the internet is necessary for a minimally decent life and should therefore be provided for free to those who cannot otherwise afford it.
Explain how the warning sign you noted above is it is present in the discussion (or explain why you chose none of the above).
This argument is probably best characterized as showing no bogus science warning signs. (We don't know enough about the study to judge completely, but it is continuing research on a gene that has long been connected to cancer.) You could possibly concern that the PSA tests are right at the limits of detection, but this is a stretch and not the center of the argument.
Explain how the argument strategy that you noted above is present in this argument.
This gets close to being a definitional argument. The defined term is of course the "Mandela Effect". This argument doesn't strongly try to prove that the cases it describes are instances of the effect. It is more accurate to say that it uses those instances to prove that the Mandela effect is real. That is a kind of definition argument. It is definitely a causal argument, arguing that moving through parallel universes causes this mismatch between memory and "reality".
SCIENTISM
This is a view that claims science is the only reliable way to acquire knowledge.
Explain how the argument strategy that you noted above is present in this argument.
This is a weak proposal argument. There is a significant focus on the evaluation part of the proposal -- the need for the internet for minimally decent lives. However, the causal part is really missing. There is some vague suggestions about how the internet fosters a better life, but not real proof (especially given the proposal).
SCIENCE
This method is a more rigorous version of our frequent desire to acquire the best explanation for a circumstance.
Explain how the warning sign you noted above is it is present in the discussion (or explain why you chose none of the above).
Though this argument makes a claim with empirical evidence. It offers no science of any sort. There aren't any warning signs. There just isn't any science.
Brief Summary
Women born without olfactory bulbs have brains that remodel to preserve the ability to smell.
Describe what kind of evidence would prove the conclusion you've just identified.
You need evidence anonymized studies of a range of subjects showing that when controlling for sleep (good or bad), exercise (sedentary or active), and stress (lots or little), neck pain correlates with the positive lifestyle choices (good sleep, active exercise, little stress). A controlled study comparing good and bad posture and neck pain would be helpful. Finally a controlled study where all of these factors were controlled would be ideal. The evidence ultimately is empirical and would require some kind of scientific study.
Describe what kind of evidence would prove the conclusion you've just identified.
You would have to have evidence for the evaluative piece -- that we should endeavor to prolong the lives of men with the BRCA2 gene. That part is pretty easy -- it's kind of a given -- but it is a moral argument about the value of human life. The second piece is a causal argument that this screening will identify cancer in these men that are high risk and thereby prolong there lives. This is an empirical argument; it would require scientific studies. They would be imperfect because the you couldn't subject these high risk men to lesser treatment to see what would happen.
