Philosophy - Chapter 4: reasons for belief and doubt

believing should not be your what?

'default setting'

identification

- ads persuade by simply inviting the consumer to identify with attractive individuals or groups

what principle should critical thinkers follow for advertising and persuasion

- we generally have good reason to doubt advertising claims and be wary of adverting's persuasive powers

what are 3 ways distortion can happen

1. passive reporting 2. reporters may decide not to cover certain stories or specific aspects of a story (selectivity is necessary and inevitable) 3. editors and reporters alter our perception of the news by playing up or down certain aspects

expert opinions are never what

a guarantee of truth

misleading comparison

comparisons in ads can be misleading in many ways

When experts disagree over a claim, we have good reasons to what

doubt it

what is the #1 thing to make you believe something

evidence

When an unsupported claim does not conflict with what we already know, we are often justified in believing it because it comes from what

experts

what is another common error in innumeracy (didn't go over)

misjudging of coincidences

is 'common sense' always right

no

what is the lesson in innumeracy (didn't go over)

not that we should mistrust all judgement about probabilities, but rather that we shouldn't rely solely on our intuitive sense in evaluating them ('gut feelings' are no replacement for doing the math!)

though advertising can be truthful and helpful its primary function is not to what?

not to provide objective and accurate information to consumers

because someone is an expert in one field does not mean that he or she is necessarily an expert in another means

that it's not that they cannot be right it's that their expertise in that field does not give us reason to believe them in all things

what should our degree of belief vary according to

the evidence

if we care whether our beliefs are true or reliable, then we must care about what?

the reasons for accepting those beliefs

how can news be distorted?

through editors and reporters deciding what is newsworthy

the more background information the claim conflict with the more reason we have to what

to doubt it

what is the result of confirming bias

we can end up accepting a claim that's not true

how do we frequently reject evidence

we don't normally do it outright, but are simply more critical in a one-sided way

resisting contrary evidence

we resist evidence that flies in the face of out cherished belief

even if no evidence is given do we still believe a claim that an expert says

yes

what do critical thinkers have to ask about designated authorities

'does this person provide us with any good reason or evidence'

how do most news sources make profit

- by advertising

what does background information include

- facts about everyday things -beliefs based on very good evidence -justified claims that we would regard as 'common sense' or 'common knowledge'

what are 4 advertisers persuasion techniques

- identification -slogans -misleading comparisons -weasel words

how a conflict with background knowledge works

- if a claim conflicts with our background information, we have good reason to doubt it

what are five common fallacies used in advertising?

- inappropriate appeal to authority - appeal to emotion -appeal to popularity -hasty generalization -faulty analogies

why do you think so many people came to believe in 'gamblers fallacy'?

- just looking for the confirming evidence (winning) of why you must continue - remember the times that way of thinking worked, and forget all the many many times it didn't

advertising has a reputation and a history of what

- misleading messages

what are three of the most common and most serious mistakes we make?

- resisting contrary evidence - looking for confirming evidence - preferring available evidence

why is money one key factor in the quality of news reporting

- some need to make a profit -some need to balance their budgets and money still matters

how does advertising work for media sources

- they need big audiences - they need news that will not offend advertisers, audience, or stockholders

what do conflicting claims leave you with

- you are not justified in believing one of them until you resolve the conflict

some indicators we can use to consider someone an expert are their? (not guarantees but indicators)

-amount of education -experiences in making reliable judgments -reputation among peers -professional accomplishment

how can conflicting claims end up working out

-both cannot be true -both can be false -one can be true and one can be false

how can we cope with claims in the news

-by transforming the information into knowledge, we need critical thinking -consider how the news media works

how do you evaluate the reliability of the news

-consider whether the report conflicts with what you have good reason to believe - look for reporter slanting - consider the source - check for missing information - look for false emphasis -check alternate news sources

we often fail to give evidence when it's due because we..

-ignore evidence - deny evidence -manipulate evidence - distort evidence

what are some examples of news media

-magazines -newspapers -TV stations - radio -websites

why/how can we resist contrary evidence

-psychologically comforting, but it can prevent any further search for knowledge - often, you will see the evidence you want to see (and be blind to what you do not want to see)

in their specialty areas, experts are more likely to be right then we are because

-they have access to more information on the subject -they are better at judging that information than we are ~primarily because of their greater experience and practice

how is advertising designed

-to influence, persuade or manipulate - to an impressive degree and in many ways, it does successfully influence, peruse or manipulate

what happens when claims conflict (do not believe both, doubt both)

-when two claims conflict they simply both cannot be true (critical think about how both cannot be true)(does not mean that one is true and one is false) -if a new claim conflicts with other claims we have good reason to accept, we have good grounds for doubting the new claim

how many items do you need to find to conclusively confirm your claim (swan example)

1

what are two ways a problematic 'appeal to authority' can happen

1. because someone is an expert in one field does not mean that he or she is necessarily an expert in another 2. we may fall into a fallacious appeal to authority by regarding a non-expert as an expert (movies stars, TV actors, famous athletes)

what are three factors that can give us good reason to doubt the reliability of personal experience? (important)

1. impairment 2. expectation 3. innumeracy

the quality of news reporting depends on many factors and one key factor is what?

MONEY

when a claim comes from someone deemed to be an expert who in fact is not an expert we commit fallacy, known as what

appeal to authority

someone must have shown that he or she can assess relevant evidence and arguments and what

arrive at well-supported conclusions in a particular field

when we make an off-cuff judgment about the chances of something happening we should what

be extra careful

why should we be extra careful when we make an off-the-cuff judgement about the chances of something happening

because we humans are generally terrible at figuring probabilities

innumeracy

being really bad with numbers

the more evidence a claim has in its favour, the stronger our what in it should be

belief

slogans

catchy, memorable phrases are the stock-in-trade of advertising, which gets out attention

we often seek out and use only confirming evidence is called what

confirming bias

what is another type of conflict

conflict with background information

since there is no cure for one-sided thinking how do you overcome it

critically examine our favourite claims

what should we look for when we evaluate claims

disconfirming and confirming evidence

if a claim conflicts with expert opinion, we have good reason to what

doubt it

good critical thinkers are careful about what

expert opinions

in a complex world people must rely on who

experts

what is the #2 thing to make you believe something

experts

what is the greatest account of evidence

eyewitness account

a third problem with innumeracy

fooling ourselves

it is not reasonable to believe a claim when there is no what?

good reason for doing so

what are we often oblivious or in outright denial about?

how effectively advertising influences, persuades, or manipulates us

impairment

if our perceptual powers are somehow impaired, we have reason to doubt them

what is our resistance like

it is often subtle

if an expert makes a claim, then we are generally what

justified to believe in it

should you doubt a claim it if conflicts with an expert opinion

no

we accept a great many claims because they are based on what?

personal experience- our own or someone else's

we should what our beliefs to the evidence

proportion

what are some examples of impairment to doubt the trustworthiness of what we experience

situation: too dark, too bright, too hazy, too noisy senses: sick, injured, tired, stressed, excited, drugged, distracted, disoriented, drunk

who is an expert

someone who is more knowledgeable in a particular subject area than other people

conflict with background knowledge

sometimes rather than two conflicting claims, we see a conflict between a claim and our own background information

people listen to and believe political, religious, tribal, and cultural leaders because

they have been designated as authorities

weasel words

they water down a claim in subtle ways - just enough to ensure that it is technically true but superficially misleading

what happens later if you ask people to visualize something

they will say that it is common

what is a second common error in innumeracy (gambler's fallacy) (didn't go over)

to think that previous events can influence the probabilities in the random event at hand

why do we misjudge coincidences (didn't go over)

we often believe that an event is too improbable to be a mere coincidence

expectation

we often perceive exactly what we expect, regardless of whether there's really anything there to detect

availability error

we rely on evidence because it's memorable or striking, or rather, because it is psychologically 'available'

when can an experts claim become unbelievable

when it starts to conflict with background knowledge

is it possible that a conflicting claim is true and some of our background information is unfounded

yes

is it reasonable to accept the evidence provided by personal experience?

yes, only if there is no good reason to doubt it