Skip to main content

Chapter 7

My response for this week will not be a consistent look at chapter 7, but a selective address of a few terms in a random format.


"The Sample with Built-in Bias"
When reading about this poor use of statistics I am reminded of the way the electoral college works in the United States. The "sample with built-in bias" may appear at first to be an acceptable statistic, but actually contains a specific lean. In a similar way, people would like to believe that the electoral college reflects the popular vote, when in reality, it can be far from it. The example in the book demonstrates bias in a statistic because many people chose not to answer a survey question. The result was a statistic that conveniently ignores a problem possibly with the question. Similarly, in our elections, people might draw the conclusion that Donald Trump won the popular vote, or even came significantly close. The electoral college, however functions much like the "built-in bias." Donald Trump won by a wide margin in the electoral college, but Hillary had more of the popular vote. People might draw the conclusion that more voters supported Donald Trump, but that is not true.


"The Gee-Whiz Graph"
Graphs have the potential to look like strong confirmation without necessarily being very strong. An example of this that I have encountered is when I studied the connection between lead poisoning and crime. On one website I found, run by a fanatic about the issue, there were graphs that showed nearly identical curves indicating that crime waves have followed the use of lead in the past. While these graphs almost look conclusive, they involved a great amount of manipulation and adjustment. The use of lead in gasoline over the 20th century was compared to the incidence of crime. These graphs were both manipulated to create a sense that they are closely linked. Margins, time, and units of measure were all adjusted in order to match the two graphs. While I take this example with a grain of salt, I still think that it worsened the argument because there was so much manipulation involved.


Reluctant Evidence
Reluctant evidence is described as evidence that a position held by an opposing party is or has been problematic. Immediately I think of arguments against the Clintons that were brought up during the 2016 presidential race. Bill Clinton, for example, supported and signed into law strong measures against drug-related crime. The legislation he supported resulted in rapidly increased mass incarceration. While Clinton was a liberal then and is one now, this position has been used to demonstrate failure and a somewhat conservative lean. In the social media firestorm that happened prior to the election, this and many other pieces of reluctant evidence were used to undermine people's support of Hillary.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more