DOCSLIB.ORG

A) Bandwagon Effect the Bandwagon Effect Is a Phenomenon Whereby the Rate of Uptake of Beliefs, Ideas, Fads and Trends Increa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A) Bandwagon Effect the Bandwagon Effect Is a Phenomenon Whereby the Rate of Uptake of Beliefs, Ideas, Fads and Trends Increa A) Bandwagon effect The bandwagon effect is a phenomenon whereby the rate of uptake of beliefs, ideas, fads and trends increases the more that they have already been adopted by others. In other words, the bandwagon effect is characterized by the probability of individual adoption increasing with respect to the proportion who have already done so.[1] As more people come to believe in something, others also "hop on the bandwagon" regardless of the underlying evidence. (Wikipedia) B) Glittering generalities A glittering generality (also called glowing generality) is an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason. Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim. Their appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, and desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. They are typically used by politicians and propagandists. (Wikipedia) C) Plain folks A plain folks argument is one in which the speaker presents him or herself as an average Joe — a common person who can understand and empathize with a listener's concerns. The most important part of this appeal is the speaker's portrayal of themselves as someone who has had a similar experience to the listener and knows why they may be skeptical or cautious about accepting the speaker's point of view. In this way, the speaker gives the audience a sense of trust and comfort, believing that the speaker and the audience share common goals and that they thus should agree with the speaker. (Wikipedia) D) Name calling Name calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at a person or group. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent. (Wikipedia) E) Association fallacy An association fallacy is an informal inductive fallacy of the hasty-generalization or red-herring type and which asserts, by irrelevant association and often by appeal to emotion, that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another. Two types of association fallacies are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. (Wikipedia) F) False Dilemma A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (Wikipedia) G) Argument to authority An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument (a form of reasoning which is rationally compelling but not valid) in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. (Wikipedia) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • Shaping News -- 1 --Media Power
    Shaping News – 1 Theories of Media Power and Environment Course Description: The focus in these six lectures is on how some facts are selected, shaped, and by whom, for daily internet, television, and print media global, national, regional, and local dissemination to world audiences. Agenda-setting, priming, framing, propaganda and persuasion are major tools to supplement basic news factors in various media environments. Course Goals and Student Learning Objectives: The overall goal is to increase student awareness that media filter reality rather than reflect it, and those selected bits of reality are shaped to be understood. Student learning objectives are: 1. Demonstrate how media environments and media structures determine what information is selected for dissemination; 2. Demonstrate how and why different media disseminate different information on the same situation or event; 3. Demonstrate how information is framed, and by whom, to access the media agenda. Required Texts/Readings: Read random essays and research online that focus on media news factors, agenda-setting and framing Assignments and Grading Policy: Two quizzes on course content plus a 20-page paper on a related, student- selected and faculty-approved research paper. Shaping News – 1 Media Environments and Media Power This is the first of six lectures on the shaping on news. It will focus on the theories of media environments based on the assumption that media are chameleon and reflect the governmental/societal system in which they exist. The remaining five lectures are on: (2) elements of news; (3) agenda-setting and framing; (4) propaganda; (5) attitude formation; and (6) cognitive dissonance. Two philosophical assumptions underlying the scholarly examination of mass media are that (1) the media are chameleons, reflecting their environment, and (2) their power is filtered and uneven.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Fallacy Examples
    False Dilemma Fallacy Examples Wood groping his tokamaks contends direly, but fun Bernhard never inspirit so chief. Orren internationalizes chicly? Tinglier and citric Nick privileging her dieter buna concludes and embitter rascally. Example Eitheror fallacy Sometimes called a false dilemma the argument that group are only practice possible answers to a complicated question people usually. This versions of affirming or truer than all arguments that must be reading bad day from false dilemma fallacy examples are headed for this form. Are holding until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for example. While the false dilemma fallacy examples. Below is giving brief biography of memory person, followed by walking list of topics. Thus making a fallacy examples of fallacies. This fallacy examples should avoid these fallacies are fallacious arguments seriously to work with being deceitful and encourage criticism by changing your choice? The broad type of that disprove a dog failed exam. Some do nothing, while there is the universe could we go down a dilemma fallacy examples to job more extreme. For example of examples and red herrings, and comparisons aiming to. Paul had thought the proposed in this false dilemma fallacy examples and deny first valid. You seen the fallacies when someone thinks something unsavory or element hints the conclusion he is a matter correctly or in these criteria for a group of. Work alone cause in pairs. Politician X will bend away your freedom of speech! For future, the argument above need be considered fallacious by bicycle for everything blue represents calmness. It simply doing a profoundly important types of insufficient evidence such hypotheses are discoverable by smith for as dress rehearsals for.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components
    Section 6: Reporting Likelihood Ratios Components • Hierarchy of propositions • Formulating propositions • Communicating LRs Section 6 Slide 2 Likelihood Ratio The LR assigns a numerical value in favor or against one propo- sition over another: Pr(EjHp;I) LR = ; Pr(EjHd;I) where Hp typically aligns with the prosecution case, Hd is a reasonable alternative consistent with the defense case, and I is the relevant background information. Section 6 Slide 3 Setting Propositions • The value for the LR will depend on the propositions chosen: different sets of propositions will lead to different LRs. • Choosing the appropriate pair of propositions can therefore be just as important as the DNA analysis itself. Section 6 Slide 4 Hierarchy of Propositions Evett & Cook (1998) established the following hierarchy of propositions: Level Scale Example III Offense Hp: The suspect raped the complainant. Hd: Some other person raped the complainant. II Activity Hp: The suspect had intercourse with the complainant. Hd: Some other person had intercourse with the complainant. I Source Hp: The semen came from the suspect. Hd: The semen came from an unknown person. 0 Sub-source Hp: The DNA in the sample came from the suspect. Hd: The DNA in the sample came from an unknown person. Section 6 Slide 5 Hierarchy of Propositions • The offense level deals with the ultimate issue of guilt/ innocence, which are outside the domain of the forensic scientist. • The activity level associates a DNA profile or evidence source with the crime itself, and there may be occasions where a scientist can address this level. • The source level associates a DNA profile or evidence item with a particular body fluid or individual source.
    [Show full text]
  • Floor Debate March 17, 2016
    Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 17, 2016 [LB83 LB465 LB516 LB586 LB673 LB707 LB709 LB717 LB722A LB754 LB754A LB794 LB803 LB817 LB835 LB843 LB867A LB867 LB894 LB900 LB906 LB910 LB934 LB934A LB958 LB959 LB975 LB977 LB1009 LB1033 LB1056 LB1081 LB1082A LB1082 LB1093 LB1098A LB1105A LB1109 LR378CA LR492 LR493 LR494] PRESIDENT FOLEY PRESIDING PRESIDENT FOLEY: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME TO THE GEORGE W. NORRIS LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER FOR THE FORTY-FOURTH DAY OF THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH LEGISLATURE, SECOND SESSION. OUR CHAPLAIN FOR TODAY IS PASTOR MIKE WING OF THE GRACE COMMUNITY BIBLE CHURCH IN NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA, SENATOR GROENE'S DISTRICT. PLEASE RISE. PASTOR WING: (PRAYER OFFERED.) PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, PASTOR WING. I CALL TO ORDER THE FORTY- FOURTH DAY OF THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH LEGISLATURE, SECOND SESSION. SENATORS, PLEASE RECORD YOUR PRESENCE. ROLL CALL. MR. CLERK. PLEASE RECORD. CLERK: I HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, MR. PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE JOURNAL? CLERK: I HAVE NO CORRECTIONS. PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. ARE THERE ANY MESSAGES, REPORTS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS? CLERK: NEW RESOLUTION, SENATOR BURKE HARR OFFERS LR492, MR. PRESIDENT. THAT WILL BE LAID OVER. ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, SENATOR KOLTERMAN, TO BE INSERTED IN THE JOURNAL (RE LB975). THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE. (LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL PAGES 1019-1037.) [LR492 LB975] 1 Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Floor Debate March 17, 2016 PRESIDENT FOLEY: THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. (VISITORS INTRODUCED.) MR. CLERK, WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, LEGISLATIVE CONFIRMATION REPORTS.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Proceedings of the Fifteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2021) Uncovering Coordinated Networks on Social Media: Methods and Case Studies Diogo Pacheco,∗1,2 Pik-Mai Hui,∗1 Christopher Torres-Lugo,∗1 Bao Tran Truong,1 Alessandro Flammini,1 Filippo Menczer1 1Observatory on Social Media, Indiana University Bloomington, USA 2Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK [email protected],fhuip,torresch,baotruon,aflammin,fi[email protected] Abstract develop software to impersonate users and hide the iden- tity of those who control these social bots — whether they Coordinated campaigns are used to influence and manipulate are fraudsters pushing spam, political operatives amplifying social media platforms and their users, a critical challenge to misleading narratives, or nation-states waging online war- the free exchange of information online. Here we introduce a general, unsupervised network-based methodology to un- fare (Ferrara et al. 2016). Cognitive and social biases make cover groups of accounts that are likely coordinated. The pro- us even more vulnerable to manipulation by social bots: posed method constructs coordination networks based on ar- limited attention facilitates the spread of unchecked claims, bitrary behavioral traces shared among accounts. We present confirmation bias makes us disregard facts, group-think five case studies of influence campaigns, four of which in the and echo chambers distort perceptions of norms, and the diverse contexts of U.S. elections, Hong Kong protests, the bandwagon effect makes us pay attention to bot-amplified Syrian civil war, and cryptocurrency manipulation. In each memes (Weng et al. 2012; Hills 2019; Ciampaglia et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fallacies of Argument
    The Fallacies of Argument No matter what type of reasoning model is used, writers will sometimes make errors in logic. Such errors are called "logical fallacies," a term derived from the Latin fallere meaning "to deceive." Used unintentionally, these fallacies deceive writers into feeling that their arguments are more persuasive than they are. Even though an argument might be emotionally persuasive and even sound valid, a fallacy creates a flaw in the logic of an argument, thereby weakening its structure and inviting counterattacks. Not all fallacies are unintentional. Sometimes a fallacy is deliberately employed - for example, when the writer's goal has more to do with persuading than arriving at the truth. Every day we are confronted with fallacies in media commercials and advertisements. Likewise, every election year the airwaves are full of candidates' bloated claims and pronouncements rife with logical fallacies of all kinds. Whether to strengthen your own writing or to resist fallacies in the arguments of others, it makes sense to be aware of such conscious or unconscious deceptions in reasoning. Following are some of the most common fallacies of argument: A. Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise: Since a negative premise excludes a relationship between two of the terms (A is not B), the only kind of conclusion that can be arrived at logically is a proposition that excludes any relationship between one of these terms and a third term (B is not C). B. Affirming the Consequent: Starts with a hypothetical proposition: "If he makes concessions to the Iraqi ambassador, the prestige of the United States will decline." The consequent is affirmed: "The prestige of the United States has declined." The fallacy is then the conclusion drawn from this affirmation of the consequent: "He must have made concessions to the Iraqi ambassador." That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • • Today: Language, Ambiguity, Vagueness, Fallacies
    6060--207207 • Today: language, ambiguity, vagueness, fallacies LookingLooking atat LanguageLanguage • argument: involves the attempt of rational persuasion of one claim based on the evidence of other claims. • ways in which our uses of language can enhance or degrade the quality of arguments: Part I: types and uses of definitions. Part II: how the improper use of language degrades the "weight" of premises. AmbiguityAmbiguity andand VaguenessVagueness • Ambiguity: a word, term, phrase is ambiguous if it has 2 or more well-defined meaning and it is not clear which of these meanings is to be used. • Vagueness: a word, term, phrase is vague if it has more than one possible and not well-defined meaning and it is not clear which of these meanings is to be used. • [newspaper headline] Defendant Attacked by Dead Man with Knife. • Let's have lunch some time. • [from an ENGLISH dept memo] The secretary is available for reproduction services. • [headline] Father of 10 Shot Dead -- Mistaken for Rabbit • [headline] Woman Hurt While Cooking Her Husband's Dinner in a Horrible Manner • advertisement] Jack's Laundry. Leave your clothes here, ladies, and spend the afternoon having a good time. • [1986 headline] Soviet Bloc Heads Gather for Summit. • He fed her dog biscuits. • ambiguous • vague • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous AndAnd now,now, fallaciesfallacies • What are fallacies or what does it mean to reason fallaciously? • Think in terms of the definition of argument … • Fallacies Involving Irrelevance • or, Fallacies of Diversion • or, Sleight-of-Hand Fallacies • We desperately need a nationalized health care program. Those who oppose it think that the private sector will take care of the needs of the poor.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media and Credibility Indicator: the Effects of Bandwagon and Identity Cues Within Online Health and Risk Contexts
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Communication Communication 2016 Social Media And Credibility Indicator: The Effects Of Bandwagon And Identity Cues Within Online Health And Risk Contexts Xialing Lin University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/ETD.2016.059 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Lin, Xialing, "Social Media And Credibility Indicator: The Effects Of Bandwagon And Identity Cues Within Online Health And Risk Contexts" (2016). Theses and Dissertations--Communication. 46. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/comm_etds/46 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Communication by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]