DOCSLIB.ORG

Oxnard Course Outline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Course ID: PHIL R100 Curriculum Committee Approval Date: 04/12/2017 Catalog Start Date: Fall 2018 COURSE OUTLINE OXNARD COLLEGE I. Course Identification and Justification: A. Proposed course id: PHIL R100 Banner title: Critical Thinking Full title: Critical Thinking Previous course id: PHIL R100 Banner title: Critical Thinking Full title: Critical Thinking B. Reason(s) course is offered: This course fulfills general education requirements in critical thinking for the A.A. degree and CSU. C. Reason(s) for current outline revision: Update per five-year review cycle: textbooks, minor corrections from previous outline; etc. D. C-ID: 1. C-ID Descriptor: 2. C-ID Status: Not Applicable E. Co-listed as: Current: None Previous: II. Catalog Information: A. Units: Current: 3.00 Previous: 3.00 B. Course Hours: 1. In-Class Contact Hours: Lecture: 52.5 Activity: 0 Lab: 0 2. Total In-Class Contact Hours: 52.5 3. Total Outside-of-Class Hours: 105 4. Total Student Learning Hours: 157.5 C. Prerequisites, Corequisites, Advisories, and Limitations on Enrollment: 1. Prerequisites Current: Previous: 2. Corequisites Current: Previous: 3. Advisories: Current: Previous: 4. Limitations on Enrollment: Current: Previous: D. Catalog description: Current: This course provides an introduction to critical thinking by emphasizing analytical reasoning. The course examines inductive and deductive reasoning as well as other forms of persuasion. Topics include analysis of arguments, explanations, and informal fallacies that occur in the natural sciences, social sciences (including applied ethics), the humanities, (such as philosophy or art criticism), as well as everyday discourse. Critical thinking and problem-solving skills to be developed include identifying and evaluating arguments; recognizing and correcting reasoning errors; constructing arguments based on sound methods of reasoning; and assessing subjects from multiple theoretical points of view. Previous, if different: This course provides an introduction to critical thinking by emphasizing analytical reasoning. The course examines inductive and deductive reasoning as well as other forms of persuasion. Topics include: analysis of arguments, explanations, and informal fallacies that occur in the natural sciences, social sciences (including applied ethics), the humanities, (such as philosophy or art criticism), as well as everyday discourse. Critical thinking and problem-solving skills to be developed include: identifying and evaluating arguments; recognizing and correcting reasoning errors; constructing arguments based on sound methods of reasoning; and assessing subjects from multiple theoretical points of view. E. Fees: Current: $ None Previous, if different: $ F. Field trips: Current: Will be required: [ ] May be required: [X] Will not be required: [ ] Previous, if different: Will be required: [ ] May be required: [ ] Will not be required: [ ] G. Repeatability: Current: A - Not designed as repeatable Previous: A - Not designed as repeatable H. Credit basis: Current: Letter Graded Only [X] Pass/No Pass [ ] Student Option [ ] Previous, if different: Letter Graded Only [ ] Pass/No Pass [ ] Student Option [ ] I. Credit by exam: Current: Petitions may be granted: [ ] Petitions will not be granted: [X] Previous, if different: Petitions may be granted: [ ] Petitions will not be granted: [ ] III. Course Objectives: Upon successful completion of this course, the student should be able to: A. Distinguish fact from value, and knowledge from opinion. B. Distinguish narration from persuasion, as well as rational explanation from rational justification. C. Assess the strength or validity of the connection between premises and conclusions, evaluating whether conclusions follow from premises, deductively or inductively. D. Analyze and evaluate arguments from a variety of subject area sources in terms of logical structure, use of language, type of reasoning, and type of evidence offered. E. Analyze and evaluate assumptions and implications, both hidden and stated, of arguments from diverse sources. F. Recognize and assess the use and relevance of primary inductive reasoning forms, such as appeal to analogy, causal reasoning, probability and statistics, and scientific hypothesis testing. G. Identify informal fallacies and explain the nature of their reasoning errors. H. Distinguish between the appropriate use of scientific methodologies and the abuse of pseudo-scientific facsimiles. I. Construct arguments and be able to refute poorly reasoned arguments using a variety of logical techniques. J. Demonstrate awareness of cultural diversity (a good thing) and cultural bias (a bad thing) if they appear in argumentation. IV. Student Learning Outcomes: A. Evaluate the quality/soundness of inductive arguments. B. Apply one or more methods of inductive reasoning, for example, use of analogy, or causal reasoning, or probability claims, or hypothesis tests, etc. C. Student will give reasons pro and con in discussion of an argument, theory or position in philosophy. D. Identify fallacious forms of reasoning. V. Course Content: Topics to be covered include, but are not limited to: A. The Elements of Logic and Critical Thinking 1. Arguments a. Descriptions, explanations, justifications and other uses of language b. Premises and conclusions c. Assumptions and implications 2. Reasoning a. Deductive and inductive inferences i. Valid versus invalid inferences ii. Strong versus weak inferences iii. Sound versus unsound arguments iv. Necessary versus empirical statement-claims v. How deduction and induction can operate together in analysis b. Varieties of inductive reasoning (inductive generalization) i. Appealing to a typical example ii. Induction from past to future iii. Analogical reasoning (induction by analogy) 1. Figurative a. Simile b. Metaphor 2. Non-figurative/literal 3. Counter-argument analogies 4. Faulty analogies 5. Inductive analogy: Criteria a. Relevance of similarities (positive analogy) b. Number of similarities c. Nature and degree of disanalogy (negative analogy) d. Number of primary analogues e. Diversity among the primary analogues f. Degree of analogy between new/predicted instance and previously observed instances g. Specificity of the conclusion 6. Legal reasoning a. Literal analogies b. Precedent law/statutes: e.g. the present case is "like" People v. Harris 7. Moral reasoning a. Descriptive analogy b. Arguments from analogy versus counter analogy c. Example: Abortion debate i. Harming a fetus is "like" committing an assault ii. A fetus is a part of the mother's body, "like" a wart is part of one's hand iv. Causal reasoning 1. Causality a. Necessary conditions: e.g., clouds necessary for rain b. Sufficient conditions: e.g., fire sufficient- for/causes heat c. Necessary and sufficient conditions: e.g., bachelor and unmarried male 2. (John Stuart) Mill's Methods of identifying causal connections a. Method of agreement: identifies cause as necessary condition b. Method of disagreement: identifies cause as sufficient condition c. Method of residues: subtracting already-known casual connections from a causal claim d. Method of concomitant variation: matching variations in one condition with variations in another 3. Mill's methods and science a. Method of controlled experiment i. Experimental group ii. Control group iii. Distribution curves (graphs/data) iv. Longitudinal study b. Correlation i. Positive correlation: one variable tends to increase/decrease parallel with another ii. Negative correlation: one variable tends to increase/decrease in opposition with another iii. No correlation: random, haphazard, or accidental association iv. Perfect correlation v. Significant correlation vi. Spurious association: mistaking one variable for causing another, when they are merely associated, and a third factor is causing both; e.g., runny nose, watery eyes, (true cause of both: breathing pollen) c. Inference from correlation to causation 4. Contributing causes/partial causes v. Probability 1. Classical theory: number of favorable results relative to number of possible results: e.g. selecting cards from a standard (game) deck 2. (Betting) Odds: number of favorable results relative to number of unfavorable results: e.g., rolling dice 3. Relative frequency theory: e.g., mortality tables (insurance companies) 4. Subjectivist theory: probability based on beliefs of individual people: e.g., horse race or stock market 5. Game Theory: e.g. the Prisoner's Dilemma, (predictions based on conditional/hypothetical assumptions) vi. Statistics 1. Generalizing from a sample 2. Samples and populations a. Randomness: every member of a population has an equal chance of being selected b. Sample size i. Margin of error ii. Confidence level iii. Diversity 1. Heterogeneous group 2. Homogeneous group c. Stratified sampling of the value of a variable: e.g. testing for drunk drivers at peak/selected times, (and not at equally random times) 3. Statistical significance versus coincidental pattern 4. Designing tests and obstacles to collecting reliable data a. Sample bias and psychological influence b. Fallacy of hasty generalization: jumping to conclusions, (unwarranted by evidence) 5. The meaning of the term "average" a. Mean b. Median c. Mode 6. Dispersion (of data; how spread out data are in relation to numerical value) a. Range (difference between smallest and largest) b. Variance (a measure of how far data are from a mean value/central tendency) c. Standard deviation: a measure of how far data deviate from the mean value; the square root of the
Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

    Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
  • Common Reasoning Mistakes

    Common Reasoning Mistakes

    Common Fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) The fallacy fallacy • There is danger even in the study of fallacies. This study involves identifying certain patterns of reasoning as fallacies. Each pattern has a name. E.g. an argument that attacks a person is ad hominem. But ad hominem arguments are not always fallacies! • Rejecting an argument as a (named) fallacy, based on its pattern alone, is a fallacy that we might call the fallacy fallacy. • In general, an ad hominem is only legitimate when attacking an argument from authority. • But not all such attacks on authority are legitimate. They can be made on irrelevant grounds. Irrelevant ad hominem E.g. Einstein’s physics was attacked on the basis of Einstein being Jewish. Thomas Powers, Heisenberg’s War, p. 41 Fallacy? • Alliance leader Stockwell Day argues that Canada should increase its military expenditure now, by at least 20%, in order to continue to meet our NATO obligations five years from now. But Day is a fundamentalist who thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old! Clearly his view can be dismissed. • Mr. Wilson, in his letter of January 16, argues that it would be counter-productive to yield to the demands of the hostage takers. He does not, I take it, have a son or daughter among the hostages. As such a parent, I am repelled by his callous attitude. My daughter could well be the next innocent victim of these terrorists, but Wilson apparently doesn’t give a damn about this. 1. Comment on the following ad hominem (to the person) arguments, explaining why they are, or are not, reasonable.
  • Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Love Is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-In-One Homeschool

    Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Love Is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-In-One Homeschool

    Explicit examples of logical fallacies in Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-in-One Homeschool A dicto simpliciter ("an argument based on an unqualified generalization") - the example given in the story is: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise. Hasty generalization (or "fallacy of insufficient sample") - example given in the story is “You can speak French, I can't speak French, Petey Burch can't speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.” If most of the people the author (Dobie Gillis) knows cannot speak French he concludes that no one at the college can speak French. OR "My dear," I said, favoring her with a smile, "we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along, splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched." Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after it, therefore because of it", or "confusing coincidental relationships with cause") - from the story: “Let's not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.” Contradictory Premises ("self-contradiction") - from the story: I do not see the contradictory premise in this story. The main contradiction would be that the author (Dobie Gillis) begins the story believing that love is logical and can be won through logic. However, the end of the story proves that love is not logical and Dobie’s original belief was a fallacy. Ad Misericordiam ("appeal to pity") - example given in the story: "A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies the he has wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming." OR “Polly, I love you.
  • A Coherentist Conception of Ad Hoc Hypotheses

    A Coherentist Conception of Ad Hoc Hypotheses

    A coherentist conception of ad hoc hypotheses Samuel Schindler [email protected] forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Abstract What does it mean for a hypothesis to be ad hoc? One prominent account has it that ad hoc hypotheses have no independent empirical support. Others have viewed ad hoc judgements as subjective. Here I critically review both of these views and defend my own Coherentist Conception of Ad hocness by working out its conceptual and descriptive attractions. Keywords: ad hoc; confirmation; independent support; novel success; coherence 1 Introduction It is widely agreed—amongst scientists and philosophers alike—that a good hypothesis ought not to be ad hoc. Consequently, a theory that requires ad hoc hypotheses in order to overcome empirical tests ought to be less acceptable for a rational agent than a theory that does without (or with fewer) ad hoc amendments. But what precisely does it mean for a hypothesis to be ad hoc? This is what this paper is about. Concept clarification is one of the central tasks of philosophy. Usually, it involves an explicandum and an explicatum, viz. a pre-analytic concept that is to be explicated and a concept which explicates this concept, respectively (Carnap 1950). For example, the concept TEMPERATURE explicates our pre- analytic concepts of WARM and COLD, and allows us to be much more precise and clear in the way we communicate with each other. In the case of ad hocness, the pre-analytic concept is something along the lines of “was introduced for the sole purpose of ‘saving’ a theory which faces observational anomalies”.
  • Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures

    Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures

    ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES COURSE SYLLABUS PHILOSOPHY 201 LOGICAL REASONING (PHL 201) (Revised 10/20/04 – Dr. Daniel Keller.) I. Faculty Listing: PHL 201: Logical Reasoning (3 credit hours) II. Description: To satisfactorily complete the course, a student must earn a grade of “C.” The course is designed to help students assess information and arguments and to improve their ability to reason in a clear and logical way. The course concentrates specifically on helping students learn some of the various uses of languages, understand how different kinds of inferences are drawn, and learn to recognize fallacies of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance. III. Purpose: Many students do not reason soundly and do not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Hence, the aim of this course is to give students experience in learning to recognize and evaluate arguments; it also aims at teaching them to construct arguments that are reasonable and defensible. It is designed as a basic course to improve the reasoning skills of students. After completing this course successfully, students should show improvements in reading comprehension, writing, and test- taking skills. IV. Course Objectives: 1. Comprehend concepts 1-9 on the attached list. a) Define each concept b) Identify the meaning of each concept as it applies to logic. 2. Comprehend how these concepts function in logical reasoning. a) Given examples from the text of each concept, correctly identify the concept. b) Given new examples of each concept, correctly identify the concept. 3. Comprehend concepts 10-16 on the attached list. a) Define the concepts b) Identify the meaning of the concept as it applies to logic.
  • Four Examples of Pseudoscience

    Four Examples of Pseudoscience

    Four Examples of Pseudoscience Marcos Villavicencio Tenerife, Canarias, Spain E-mail address: [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6700-4872 January 2020 Abstract A relevant issue in the philosophy of science is the demarcation problem: how to distinguish science from nonscience, and, more specifically, science from pseudoscience. Sometimes, the demarcation problem is debated from a very general perspective, proposing demarcation criteria to separate science from pseudoscience, but without discussing any specific field in detail. This article aims to focus the demarcation problem on particular disciplines or theories. After considering a set of demarcation criteria, four pseudosciences are examined: psychoanalysis, speculative evolutionary psychology, universal grammar, and string theory. It is concluded that these theoretical frameworks do not meet the requirements to be considered genuinely scientific. Keywords Demarcation Problem · Pseudoscience · Psychoanalysis · Evolutionary psychology · Universal grammar · String theory 1 Introduction The demarcation problem is the issue of how to differentiate science from nonscience in general and pseudoscience in particular. Even though expressions such as “demarcation problem” or “pseudoscience” were still not used, some consider that an early interest for demarcation existed as far back as the time of ancient Greece, when Aristotle separated episteme (scientific knowledge) from mere doxa (opinion), holding that apodictic certainty is the basis of science (Laudan 1983, p. 112). Nowadays, the issue of demarcation continues being discussed. Certainly, demarcating science from pseudoscience is not a topic of exclusive philosophical interest. Scientists and members of skeptical organizations such as the Committee for Scientific Inquiry also deal with this crucial theme. The issue of how to recognize pseudoscience not only affects academia.
  • Pre-Service Science Teachers' Discrimination Level Of

    Pre-Service Science Teachers' Discrimination Level Of

    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Pre-service Science Teachers’ Discrimination Level of Science and Pseudoscience Murat Berat Uçar1* Elvan Sahin2 1Department of Mathematics and Science Education, M. R. Faculty of Education, Kilis 7 Aralik University, Kilis, Turkey, 2Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey *Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT This quantitative study aimed to examine Turkish pre-service science teachers’ beliefs regarding the demarcating between science and pseudoscience. Participants completed the Science and Pseudoscience Distinction Scale. Data collected from the 123 pre-service science teachers were examined based on the dimensions of the instrument, namely science as a process of inquiry (SCI), demarcating between science and pseudoscience, and pseudoscientific beliefs (PS). This study found that these pre-service science teachers generally did not hold strong beliefs on distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Their beliefs regarding SCI were not highly favorable. Moreover, this study revealed that they had some PS. Considering the role of gender and year in the program, the results of two-way MANOVA indicated that there was no statistically significant difference on the related belief constructs for these pre-service science teachers. Thus, the present study intended to shed light on pre-service science teachers’ mindsets about identifying accurate scientific information rather than pseudoscientific confusions that could aid preparing scientifically
  • Should Climate Scientists Fly? a Case Study of Arguments at the System Level Jean Goodwin

    Should Climate Scientists Fly? a Case Study of Arguments at the System Level Jean Goodwin

    Document generated on 09/26/2021 2:33 a.m. Informal Logic Should Climate Scientists Fly? A Case Study of Arguments at the System Level Jean Goodwin Volume 40, Number 2, 2020 Article abstract I inquire into argument at the system level, exploring the controversy over URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1070883ar whether climate scientists should fly. I document participants’ knowledge of a DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i2.6327 skeptical argument that because scientists fly, they cannot testify credibly about the climate emergency. I show how this argument has been managed by See table of contents pro-climate action arguers, and how some climate scientists have developed parallel reasoning, articulating a sophisticated case why they will be more effective in the controversy if they fly less. Finally, I review some strategies Publisher(s) arguers deploy to use the arguments of others against them. I argue that only by attending to argument-making at the system level can we understand how Informal Logic arguers come to know the resources for argument available in a controversy and to think strategically about how to use them. I call for more work on ISSN argument at the system level. 0824-2577 (print) 2293-734X (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Goodwin, J. (2020). Should Climate Scientists Fly? A Case Study of Arguments at the System Level. Informal Logic, 40(2), 157–203. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i2.6327 Copyright (c), 2020 Jean Goodwin This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.
  • TOOLKIT Exchanges of Practices

    TOOLKIT Exchanges of Practices

    “Exchange of learning and teaching strategies: media literacy in adult education” Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships for adult education (2016-2018) Project number: 2016-1-FR01-KA204-024220 TOOLKIT Exchanges of Practices This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. Content Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….3 “Media bias, fallacies and social representations definitions” workshop…………….4 Social representation……………………………………………………………………………7 “Recognizing Fallacies” workshop…………………………………………………………..9 “Recognizing Appeals to Emotion” workshop……………………………………………21 ”Text analysis” workshop………………………………………………………………….....25 Text for analysis………………………………………………………………………………...30 Critical Thinking workshop "The Logical Fallacies of Nationalism"………………….33 Workshop on writing: “Traditional and inverted pyramids”……………………………36 Deconstructing image………………………………………………………………………....40 Project poster…………………………………………………………………………………...44 Introduction "Exchange of learning and teaching strategies: media literacy in adult education" is an Erasmus+ Strategic Partnerships project for six partners from France, Estonia, Italy, Malta, Spain and Sweden. The coordinator of this project is MITRA FRANCE non-governmental organization from France. The project is funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission. It seeks to develop initiatives addressing spheres of adult education, gathering and exchanges of experience and best practices in media literacy. This initiative contributes to strengthening media literacy as a mean of countering online and ordinary radicalisation and stigmatisation. As one of the results of this partnership the consortium has compiled a Toolkit with several good practices exchanged and tested during this project. This Toolkit is designed for adult educators, trainers and support staff who are interested in using media literacy in their daily work.
  • Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies

    Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies

    Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies 1 Learning Outcomes In this lesson we will: 1.Define logical fallacy using the SEE-I. 2.Understand and apply the concept of relevance. 3.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of relevance. 4.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of insufficient evidence. 2 What is a logical fallacy? Complete the SEE-I. S = A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. E = E = I = 3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9VE5tseuFk/T5FSHiJnu7I/AAAAAAAABIY/Ws7iCn-wJNU/s1600/Logical+Fallacy.JPG The Concept of Relevance The concept of relevance: a statement for or against another statement. A statement is relevant to a claim (i.e. another statement or premise) if it provides some reason or evidence for thinking the claim is either true of false. Three ways a statement can be relevant: 1. A statement is positively relevant to a claim if it counts in favor of the claim. 2. A statement is negatively relevant to a claim if it counts against the claim. 3. A statement is logically irrelevant to a claim if it counts neither for or against the claim. Two observations concerning the concept of relevance. 1. Whether a statement is relevant to a claim usually depends on the context in which the statement is made. 2. A statement can be relevant to a claim even if the claim is false. 5 Fallacies of Relevance • Personal attack or ad hominem • Scare tactic • Appeal to pity • Bandwagon argument • Strawman • Red herring • Equivocation http://www.professordarnell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fallacies.jpg • Begging the question 6 When a person rejects another person’s argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the argument of claim he or she commits an ad hominem fallacy or personal attack.
  • Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online

    Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online

    Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online Discussions Saumya Yashmohini Sahai Oana Balalau The Ohio State University, USA Inria, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France [email protected] [email protected] Roxana Horincar Thales Research & Technology, France [email protected] Abstract more appropriate. Fallacies are prevalent in public discourse. For example, The New York Times la- People debate on a variety of topics on online beled the tweets of Donald Trump between 2015 platforms such as Reddit, or Facebook. De- bates can be lengthy, with users exchanging and 2020 and found thousands of insults addressed a wealth of information and opinions. How- to his adversaries. If made in an argument, an in- ever, conversations do not always go smoothly, sult is an ad hominem fallacy: an attack on the and users sometimes engage in unsound argu- opponent rather than on their argument. In pri- mentation techniques to prove a claim. These vate conversations, other types of fallacies might techniques are called fallacies. Fallacies are be more prevalent, for example, appeal to tradition persuasive arguments that provide insufficient or appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition dismisses or incorrect evidence to support the claim. In calls to improve gender equality by stating that this paper, we study the most frequent falla- cies on Reddit, and we present them using “women have always occupied this place in soci- the pragma-dialectical theory of argumenta- ety”. Appeal to nature is often used to ignore calls tion. We construct a new annotated dataset of to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community by stat- fallacies, using user comments containing fal- ing “gender is binary”.
  • Psych Notes What Is Psychology

    Psych Notes What Is Psychology

    PSYCH NOTES WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY AND LEVELS OF ANALYSIS • Psychology: the study of the mind, brain and behaviour • Levels of analysis: rungs on a ladder of analysis, with lower levels tied most closely to biological influences and higher levels tied most closely to social influences • Psychology is not easy to define as it is a vast discipline, encompassing the study of perceptions, emotions, thoughts and observable behaviours from an enormous array of perspectives • The levels of analysis examined in psychology span from molecules to brain structures on the lower rungs to thoughts, feelings and emotions and to social and cultural influences on the higher rungs – ‘neurons to neighbourhoods’ o The lower rungs are more closely tied to ‘the brain’ and the higher rungs to ‘the mind’ o All rungs are essential to understanding the causes of human and animal behaviour • ‘Brain’ and ‘mind’ can be complementary ways of describing and analysing the same underlying psychological processes • To fully understand psychology must consider multiple levels of analysis as each level tells something different and allows us to gain new knowledge • Both biological and social factors are essential for a complete understanding of psychology – they cannot be examined in isolation CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTIGATING PSYCHOLOGY • The study of psychology is challenging as human behaviour is difficult to predict as almost all actions are multiply determined – they are produced by many factors o Reason why need to be sceptical of single variable explanations