Observation and Conclusion

Does a video like this bring into question the reliability of eye-witness testimony?

Argument from Anger/Strawman

The issue here is whether or not illegal immigrants should be deported once law enforcement official identify them as such. Of course, no matter what one's stand is on this issue one should offer good reasons for one's position.

Though one can cull out something like arguments on both sides the escalation to yelling as if that is supposed to show something is an example of 'argument from anger.' This really heats up at 2:20. The point here is that some individuals may think that O'Reilly is winning his argument (or that Rivera is successfully counter-attacking [though he does ask O'Reilly at one point to "cool your jets"]) merely because they are getting loud.

A more clear example of a fallacy that occurs is a strawman (possibly a rhetorical explanation/circumstantial ad-hominem as well) at 2:55 where O'Reilly accuses Rivera of wanting "open boarder anarchy."

This could have very well been staged and to a certain segment of the population this kind of stuff is probably entertaining. Nevertheless, the rhetorical techniques mentioned above are documented.

There are at least two other fallacies in clip above. Can you spot them?

Obedience to Authority Experiment 2009

Being a natural skeptic I'm not sure that I buy that the experiment depicted in this film had the right controls, etc. (unlike Milgram's). It very well might have but I need to investigate and confirm this.

On the other hand, if we can safely assume that the footage we watched in 'Obedience' is accurate, this film gives us *at least* a dramatic appraisal of a plausible assessment of what is happening to the subjects from a psychological perspective in the well documented Milgram Experiment.

In particular, requests by the "teacher" to end the experiment were met by the following schedule:

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

One final note: even if the reports in this account are true the sample set seems too small to draw broad conclusions.

Wishful Thinking--BS!!!

Why might people *desire* to believe in the super-natural to such an extent that the mere belief over-rides rational scrutiny?

The Amazing Randy has had a several decade challenge to anyone who can conclusively demonstrate para-normal (i.e., non-scientific) phenomena to the tune of 1 million dollars.

Begin at 5:46.

Wishful Thinking--OMG!

It is a shame that certain evil people will use their knowledge of human psychological weakness to prey on their fellow man.

Similar examples to this can be found by exploiting people who are trying to connect with some dead friend, relative, etc. The technique they use is "cold reading."

Stereotype--"Hip Hop Culture"

This one speaks for itself!

I think this is a fairly good example of how "leaping to conclusions" or more technically 'Hasty Generalizations' can underlie Stereotypes.

Can you spot any rhetorical devices used by the host of the program?

[Submitted by previous student Jonathan Lopez.]

Linguistic Spin: Plausible Deniability (also; Euphemisms and Dysphemisms)

Ok, this is a little dry, but notice that Pinker provides a reasonable explanation as to *how* politicians utilize plausible deniabilty to avoid saying anything with substance and *why* they do so.