Burden of Proof
Notice that in this very controversial topic Rivera tries several times to ask the people that he is interviewing to speculate on facts that lie well beyond the scope of their arguments and claims. They do a good job of not taking the bait (except for when the second person offers a conclusion without argument, but at least he presents it as only a personal belief).
Also kudos to Rivera for not bullying his guests and keeping an open mind.
The Truth Be Told...
This Critical Thinker who apparently has been able to rescue her mind references John Taylor Gatto at time point 2:53.
Gatto was named New York State Teacher of the year three times. He documents how public education is essentially an intentional directed attack whose goal is to cripple young minds.
Here is his web-site.
Subjectivism And Appeal to Poplularity United!
O'Reilly makes a rhetorical attack where he blends the accusation that his opponent's claim is merely a matter of opinion based on the fact that it is unpopular.
This starts at 2:36.
Notice how O'Reilly is trying to say that the mere fact that this women has an opinion that he personally disagrees with *makes it false*! Actually his claim is slightly more complex. Her claim is false given the fact that "the majority of people" would accept what she is saying is false. He provides no evidence of this. But even this were true: Does that *make* it false?
This starts at 2:36.
Notice how O'Reilly is trying to say that the mere fact that this women has an opinion that he personally disagrees with *makes it false*! Actually his claim is slightly more complex. Her claim is false given the fact that "the majority of people" would accept what she is saying is false. He provides no evidence of this. But even this were true: Does that *make* it false?
The Argument Clinic
Please watch up to 3:44.
Notice that although this clip is meant to be humorous it is actually also making the three points that we just learned.
1. In the first room we have an example of a verbal fight/name calling.
2. In the second room we have an example of mere contradiction.
3. An accurate definition of argument is given at 2:12. "An argument is a collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
Media Analysis: High Fructose Corn Syrup
Check out the public relations ad. Can you identify any of the "tricks" the psychologists use to try to leverage a specific conclusion without any actual argument?
What about this article which reports a direct link between high fructose corn syrup and pancreatic cancer?
What about this article which reports a direct link between high fructose corn syrup and pancreatic cancer?
Media Analysis: The Elephant in the Living Room
The central issue for most people right now it the current economic crisis. What is the most "radical" analysis of what is happening from a critical thinking perspective? By 'radical' I don't mean crazy or anarchistic, but what analysis (following the etymology of the word 'radical') "gets to the root" of the problem. Consider the following rather clear explanation of how money is generated:
Did you learn any of this in school? Have you heard anything about this in the media? If this is correct all discussions about "over-spending" and the like are a giant red-herring away from the main issue. Consider the following quotation from one of our most respected former Presidents, Abraham Lincoln:
"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Here's where the last clip left off. A little more on 'compound interest.' Good thing we were all taught about his in math class (not):
Notice how, if all of this is correct, the whole 'left'-'right' dynamic is itself a distraction (red herring) away from the central issue that is effecting the entire planet. If you fall for this, you're falling for the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer! Time to think for yourself people.
Parting thought:
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce...when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-James Garfield, 20th President
Did you learn how long he lasted in history class?
Did you learn any of this in school? Have you heard anything about this in the media? If this is correct all discussions about "over-spending" and the like are a giant red-herring away from the main issue. Consider the following quotation from one of our most respected former Presidents, Abraham Lincoln:
"The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."
Here's where the last clip left off. A little more on 'compound interest.' Good thing we were all taught about his in math class (not):
Notice how, if all of this is correct, the whole 'left'-'right' dynamic is itself a distraction (red herring) away from the central issue that is effecting the entire planet. If you fall for this, you're falling for the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer! Time to think for yourself people.
Parting thought:
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce...when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
-James Garfield, 20th President
Did you learn how long he lasted in history class?
Letterman v. O'Reilly
Rationalization--Video Game Addict
Check it: At 7:14 this young man claims that he is as mentally healthy as he has ever been.
External World Skepticism
Advertising: Public Relations = Propaganda
Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud pioneered the use of psychology in the marketing of products principally by creating and channeling desires and fears.
One of his first major successes was in solving a problem for the tobacco industry, namely, how to overcome social taboos against women smoking in public. Obviously, if this could be overcome a whole new market would open up.
He launched the Torches of Freedom campaign in which he linked the ability to smoke in public with women's liberation.
One of his first major successes was in solving a problem for the tobacco industry, namely, how to overcome social taboos against women smoking in public. Obviously, if this could be overcome a whole new market would open up.
He launched the Torches of Freedom campaign in which he linked the ability to smoke in public with women's liberation.
Chomsky-Herman Propaganda Model of the News
Filters:
1. Ownership
OutFoxed
Clip 6:14-21:39
2. Funding
New World Communications v. Akre
3. Sourcing
Video News Releases (aka., VNR's / "Fake News")
FCC Commissioner Interview
4. FLAK/Ideological Enemies
EXAMPLE
1. Ownership
OutFoxed
Clip 6:14-21:39
2. Funding
New World Communications v. Akre
3. Sourcing
Video News Releases (aka., VNR's / "Fake News")
FCC Commissioner Interview
4. FLAK/Ideological Enemies
EXAMPLE
The Spinning Ballerina
Is she spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise? Are you sure? Look again. Ask a friend.
"Self-Hating Jew": Rhetorical Explanation, Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Norman Finkelstein is a well known critic of Israel and its policies towards the Palestinians. Because he himself is Jewish people accuse him of being a "self-hating" Jew.
The logic, or lack thereof, seems to be something like this:
P1: Finkelstein is a Jew.
P2: Anyone who opposes the State of Israel is anti-semetic.
_______________________________
C: Finkelstein is anti-semetic, i.e., a "self-hating jew."
Of course, this argument only goes through if one accepts the second premise which is precisely what is at issue. Put differently, the argument only goes through via circularity.
I'm including this as an example because of the unique clarity that Finkelstein displays in responding to the question as to whether or not he considers himself a "self-hating jew" (posed at 3:53). His direct response begins at: 7:05. Though his point is well made in the first clip the second clip from the beginning to 2:25 seals his case.
Rhetoric versus Science: Perfectionist Fallacy/Subjectivism/Argument from Ignorance
This clip contains a "witches brew" of fallacies. This may explain Dawkins' inability to lucidly counter-attack.
O'Reilly's argument seems to be something like this:
P1: Science hasn't figured out everything, including how life began--(i.e., it is not perfect).
P2: Christianity proposes an explanation, albeit, non-scientific.
_______________________
C: One ought to believe the Christian explanation.
It seems for this argument to go through the absurd "suppressed premise" must be something like:
P3: Any explanation that merely claims to be definitive is correct. (!)
or
P3': If science hasn't come up with a definitive explanation (i.e., is not perfect) go with any other contender irrespective of likelihood/unlikelihood.
Also notice at one point (2:41) O'Reilly says that Dawkins "cannot prove to me [O'Reilly] that Jesus is not" God therefore he is entitled to his belief in God.
Dawkins correctly points out that you can use this form of pseudo-reasoning to "prove" anything exists (e.g., Zeus).
This situation is complicated by the fact that O'Reilly is treating this as a matter of opinion where Dawkins is treating this (correctly) as a matter of fact.
[Submitted by former student John Razi.]
O'Reilly's argument seems to be something like this:
P1: Science hasn't figured out everything, including how life began--(i.e., it is not perfect).
P2: Christianity proposes an explanation, albeit, non-scientific.
_______________________
C: One ought to believe the Christian explanation.
It seems for this argument to go through the absurd "suppressed premise" must be something like:
P3: Any explanation that merely claims to be definitive is correct. (!)
or
P3': If science hasn't come up with a definitive explanation (i.e., is not perfect) go with any other contender irrespective of likelihood/unlikelihood.
Also notice at one point (2:41) O'Reilly says that Dawkins "cannot prove to me [O'Reilly] that Jesus is not" God therefore he is entitled to his belief in God.
Dawkins correctly points out that you can use this form of pseudo-reasoning to "prove" anything exists (e.g., Zeus).
This situation is complicated by the fact that O'Reilly is treating this as a matter of opinion where Dawkins is treating this (correctly) as a matter of fact.
[Submitted by former student John Razi.]
The Atheism Tapes: Colin McGinn -- Arguments for and Against God's Existence
Discussion of arguments for and against God's Existence begin at :28.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)