Belief Armor - Skeptimedia. From Abracadabra to Zombies Skeptimedia is a commentary on mass media treatment of issues concerning science, the paranormal, and the supernatural. »Skeptimedia archives Skeptimedia replaces Mass Media Funk and Mass Media Bunk. Those blogs are now archived. February 10, 2009. People who believe they are psychic are also impenetrable, as witnessed by my latest exchange with Natalie. Believers in psychics are also impenetrable. Another group of impenetrables are the supplement fanatics. In the case of the supplement impenetrables, it seems that the common mantra "what harm can it do? " There's probably no general health risk in believing you or someone else is psychic, but there certainly are situations where such beliefs could be harmful or even deadly.
I think that for some people the best we can do is offer the not-so-comforting epitaph: she died with her belief armor on. Five minutes after posting the above, the following e-mail came in: RE: Dr Matthias Rath article on your site. Defending Falsehoods. If you suffered from chronic pain or hay fever from which you received no relief after many years and dollars spent on science-based treatments, wouldn't you become an advocate of chiropractic or homeopathy if you finally found relief after using one of these so-called alternative healing practices? Of course you would. You might even consider those of us who defend science-based medicine as idiots or charlatans who are either unwittingly deceived by the AMA or Big Pharma or consciously pulling a con on the general public. You might take offense at the suggestion that you've drawn a hasty conclusion in thinking that chiropractic or homeopathy is the real cause of your relief.
You might say that if anyone needs to be reminded of the power of cognitive biases to deceive us into defending falsehoods, it is the scientists of the world, not you. You know you are right because you have the personal experience to prove it. Consider the following comments from someone I'll call Ricky: Dear Mr. Topical index: critical thinking. From Abracadabra to Zombies | View All critical thinking The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable beliefs and take the most reasonable actions. We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act.
By nature, we're driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. The items below are listed in alphabetical order. 1) several essays I've written on the difficulty of changing minds: Belief Armor, Evaluating Personal Experience, Why Do People Believe in the Palpably Untrue? 2) the following entries: confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, communal reinforcement, motivated reasoning, backfire effect, memory, and perception deception. Logic and perception - topical index -The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com. Last updated 20-Nov-2015 Recommended Reading Critical Thinking Mini-Lessons Adams, James L. Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas 3rd ed. (Perseus Press, 1990). Ariely, Dan. (2008). Dawes, Robyn M. Gardner, Martin. Gardner, Martin. Gilovich, Thomas. Groopman, Jerome. Kahneman, Daniel. Kida, Thomas. 2006. Kourany, Janet A. Levine, Robert. 2003.
Sagan, Carl. Seckel, Al. (2006). Sternberg, Robert J. ed. Sutherland, Stuart. (2007). Junk science and pseudoscience - topical index. Nocebo and nocebo effect. Nocebo. In medicine, a nocebo (Latin for "I shall harm") is a harmless substance that creates harmful effects in a patient who takes it. The nocebo effect is the negative reaction experienced by a patient who receives a nocebo. Conversely, a placebo is an inert substance that creates either a positive response or a negative response in a patient who takes it. The phenomenon in which a placebo creates a positive response in the patient to which it is administered is called the placebo effect. The nocebo effect is less well-studied and well-known, by both scientists and the public, than the placebo effect.[1][2] Both nocebo and placebo effects are entirely psychogenic. Etymology[edit] Description[edit] W.R. ... Houston spoke of three significantly different categories of placebo (pp.1417-1418): An example of nocebo effect would be someone who dies of fright after being bitten by a non-venomous snake.
Response[edit] Causes[edit] Ambiguity of medical usage[edit] Ambiguity of anthropological usage[edit] CSPP: The Psychology of Political Misinformation Part 1. The Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard Law School. News - Video - Dan Kahan discusses how people's values shape perceptions of the HPV vaccine. The Project on Law and Mind Sciences. True icb.site13863 icb.topic837654 flv icb.pagecontent797583 z2WXFBI6Zs4= Guest /remote/video//js/videotool/resources/player5_10/ [harvard.fc.llnwd.net, harvardgse.fc.llnwd.net, harvardgsd.fc.llnwd.net, harvarduis.fc.llnwd.net] squish Dan Kahan - "The Laws of Cultural Cognition, and the Cultural Cognition of Law" Professor Kahan spoke at Harvard Law School on October 18, 2010 about his important work on "cultural cognition. " View the full video page to see additional video content and information. Resume. Video & Audio: Dan Kahan: Cultural Cognition and the Challenge of Science Communication - Metadata.
Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus by Dan Kahan, Hank Jenkins-Smith, Donald Braman. Dan M. Kahan Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Hank Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma Donald Braman George Washington University - Law School; Cultural Cognition ProjectFebruary 7, 2010 Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, pp. 147-74, 2011 Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 205 Abstract: Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? Number of Pages in PDF File: 40 Keywords: Cultural Cognition, Climate Change, Gun Control, Nuclear Power, Risk, Public Opinion working papers series Suggested Citation Kahan, Dan M. and Jenkins-Smith, Hank and Braman, Donald, Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (February 7, 2010). Www.culturalcognition.net - home. Semicontrolled Demolition. Fallacy. A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.[1][2] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.
Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional logic,[1] while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form.[3] Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[4] Formal fallacy[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure.
Common examples[edit] Aristotle's Fallacies[edit] List of common misconceptions. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This incomplete list is not intended to be exhaustive. This list corrects erroneous beliefs that are currently widely held about notable topics. Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature.
Note that each entry is formatted as a correction; the misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated. Arts and culture Food and cooking Roll-style Western sushi. Searing meat does not "seal in" moisture, and in fact may actually cause meat to lose moisture. Legislation and crime Literature The Harry Potter books, though they have broken children's book publishing records, have not led to an increase in reading among children or adults, nor slowed the ongoing overall decline in book purchases by Americans, and children who did read the Harry Potter books were not more likely to go on to read more outside of the fantasy and mystery genres.[21][22][23][24] Music Religion Hebrew Bible Buddhism Christianity Islam Sports.
Disinformation. Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false. Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout). Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. Examples[edit] In espionage or military intelligence, disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action.
Napoleonic wars[edit] Misinformation. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation, which is intended to mislead.[1] When comparing misinformation to disinformation, Jürgen Habermas says that the motives play an active role in the effect the information has. Misinformation may have a less devastating effect in that readers can criticize what they have read and evaluate it as truth or fiction. Authors will also have to give reasoning for their beliefs and support their statements with facts.[2] Sources[edit] In an age of technological advances, social networking sites are becoming more and more popular. These sites are an easy access point for misinformation. They provide users with the capabilities to spread information quickly to other users without confirmation of its truth. Identification[edit] Examples[edit] Social media sites have allowed citizens to spread false information about any topic they find.
Causes[edit] Bias[edit] Ignorance[edit] My Side Versus the Other Side. Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy Files. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Top 20 Logical Fallacies - The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. Introduction to Argument Structure of a Logical Argument Whether we are consciously aware of it or not, our arguments all follow a certain basic structure.
They begin with one or more premises, which are facts that the argument takes for granted as the starting point. Then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion. This structure is often illustrated symbolically with the following example: Premise1: If A = B, Premise2: and B = C Logical connection: Then (apply principle of equivalence) Conclusion: A = C In order for an argument to be considered valid the logical form of the argument must work – must be valid. Also it is important to note that an argument may use wrong information, or faulty logic to reach a conclusion that happens to be true. Breaking down an argument into its components is a very useful exercise, for it enables us to examine both our own arguments and those of others and critically analyze them for validity. Examine your Premises Ad hominem Straw Man. Logical Fallacies. Fallacies.
Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Other sites that list and explain fallacies include: Constructing a Logical Argument Description of Fallacies In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning.
List of fallacies. A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Formal fallacies[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Propositional fallacies[edit] The Critical Thinker Academy. Argumentx.