Group items tagged

LibGuides. PRC SPCH 1311 1315 Jessen: Speech Communication and Public Speaking. CRAP Detection.

We are not aware of all the mistaken information that is online and that's why crap detection is so important.

I strongly disagree with their list of 'crap' detecting guidelines. "Credentials"? "Reputable"? Fact or Fiction"? You gotta be kidding me. Most credentialed people I know are lost in the sea of institutionalized learning, and with it comes their arrogance that they know better - they don't. Those known as reputable are not walking the bleeding edge of knowledge. And fact/fiction is turning inside out as we begin to see more and more historical fictional information is now shown to be based in fact. ... LOL! ... (Not that I have an emotional attachment to this issue.) ;) ;)

"Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense. Reminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes: In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions.He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones - many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity - with examples of each in action"

The 20 fallacies: "ad hominem - Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously) argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia - but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out) argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't, society would be much more lawless and dangerous - perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives) appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist - and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - each in their own way enjoined to

Wonderful post, Kim! These are great guidelines alongside which to test ideas.

This paper draws general insights into the public reception of scientific knowledge from a case study of Cumbrian sheep farmers' responses to scientific advice about the restrictions introduced after the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. The analysis identifies several substantive factors which influence the credibility of scientific communication. Publicuptake of science might be improved if scientific institutions expressed an equivalent reflexive discourse in the public domain

This is a go-to site when I'm researching urban legends or similarly questionable claims online

a. Finding a balance between technology and teaching has proved challenging in the traditional classroom. Some institutions, such as University of Chicago Law School, have altogether banned internet access in the classroom, claiming that it imposes on the integrity of the education. Although the authors draw attention to research demonstrating the rampant frequency of distractions with laptop and mobile technology amongst students, they beg the question of whose fault it really is - and begs educators to reflect on their own teaching, and the educational institution as a whole. Fang describes possible solutions for the distraction dilemma for educators to apply to the modern classroom. Filtering applications can help to create a temporary filter on computer applications to ensure a singular task, or set of permitted tasks, are accessed. Network switching allows faculty and network administrators to determine which, if any, applications can use a network at a given time. Social solutions can also be effective; by educating the student on the issue of technology-related distraction in classrooms, and assessing teaching styles, class formats and institutional practices. In the modern classroom, the professor and technology should coexist peacefully; yet it will take social and technical finesse in order to find the right balance for the maximum benefit of the student.