12. What we won’t cover today…
• Filter-bubbles
• Overcoming misperceptions
• Belief perseverance and confirmation bias
• Prejudice and racism
See Nyhan and Reifler (2012). Misinformation and Fact-Checking: Research Findings from Social Science. New
America Foundation for more on these topics.
13. What we will discuss…
• What is argument?
• What is evidence?
• How do we look for or provide evidence in digital texts?
15. “
”
Every great idea is really just a spectacular disagreement with some other great idea.
Socrates quarrels with Homer. Aristotle quarrels with Plato. Locke quarrels with Hobbes and
Rousseau quarrels with them both. Nietzsche quarrels with everyone. Wittgenstein quarrels
with himself.
These quarrels are never personal. Nor are they particularly political, at least in the ordinary
sense of politics. Sometimes they take place over the distance of decades, even centuries.
Most importantly, they are never based on a misunderstanding.On the contrary, the
disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your
intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out.
In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well.You have to read deeply, listen
carefully, watch closely.You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the
intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with
his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be
persuaded of what he has to say.
Bret Stephens. (September 24, 2017). “The DyingArt of Disagreement.” The NewYorkTimes
16. “
”
Every great idea is really just a spectacular disagreement with some other great idea.
Socrates quarrels with Homer. Aristotle quarrels with Plato. Locke quarrels with Hobbes and
Rousseau quarrels with them both. Nietzsche quarrels with everyone. Wittgenstein quarrels
with himself.
These quarrels are never personal. Nor are they particularly political, at least in the ordinary
sense of politics. Sometimes they take place over the distance of decades, even centuries.
Most importantly, they are never based on a misunderstanding.On the contrary, the
disagreements arise from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of your
intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out.
In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well.You have to read deeply, listen
carefully, watch closely.You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the
intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with
his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be
persuaded of what he has to say.
Bret Stephens. (September 24, 2017). “The DyingArt of Disagreement.” The NewYorkTimes
21. “
”
“Evidence, we hear that word thrown around a lot.. But
what does it mean? It means the facts used to prove
that something happened.The things that people find
when they’re looking, really looking...”
–“Little Girl Lost.” Cold Case Podcast.
22. Evidence
What do you see or
know?
Claim
What is your
conclusion?
What is the rule?
24. Questions to Consider
• How is this kind of evidence generated?
• When might this kind of evidence be used?
• What cautions should be taken when encountering/using this kind of
evidence?
26. How generated
• Sustained, systematic inquiry
• Conclusions about data made over time
• Peer reviewed
When used as evidence
• To show gravitas
Cautions
• Often seen in conflict with issues of faith
• Some readers do not equate science with
truth
27. How generated
• Controlled trials ideally with large samples with
experimental and control groups
• Surveys ideally of large, random samples
When used as evidence
• To show that a particular variable makes a difference
• To show the author adheres to principles of scientific inquiry
• To highlight the ideas, opinions, or concerns of a population
Cautions
• Studies designed without controls
• Bias (funding)
• Statistics without context
• Correlation vs. causation (see SpuriousCorrelations!)
28. How generated
• Individual with advanced knowledge of a field
publishes, speaks, or is quoted in the media
When used as evidence
• To support claims with the authority of
another
Cautions
• Making the case for the expert
• The bias of the expert (funding)
• Collective expertise may be valuable
29. How generated
• Celebrities share their own opinions
When used as evidence
• To convince an audience who respects the
individual
Cautions
• Taken in context
• Opinions vs. interpretation of facts
• Bias (funding)
• Bandwagon appeals
30. How generated
• Personal experience
When used as evidence
• To make an emotional appeal
Cautions
• Reliability of human memory
• Telephone effect
• Context
• Generalizability
35. SeeingArguments in
My Social Media Life
• What kind of claims are made?
• How do people respond when they
disagree?
• How do they use evidence to
support their claims?
39. “
”
The issue with the photograph, of course, is that the math is
all wrong, to say the least.The picture uses an estimated
jackpot of $1.3 billion spread over 300 million people, which
would actually net each person $4.33, not the $4.33 million
the photo promises.That $4.33 is barely enough to get a
combo meal at McDonald’s, let alone end poverty.
Tyler, Chris. (January 13, 2016). Powerball Math Meme:Viral Post Sucks at Math.
dbtechno.com
41. Fact Checking
• “[A] completely independent, self-sufficient
entity wholly owned by its operators and
funded through advertising revenues,” Snopes:
www.snopes.com
• A project of the Tampa BayTimes and its
partner news organizations, PolitiFact:
www.politifact.com
• A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy
Center, FactCheck.org: www.factcheck.org
• Center for Media and Democracy’s Source
Watch: www.sourcewatch.org
• Center for Responsive Politic’sOpen Secrets:
www.opensecrets.org
Fact Finding
• ProCon: www.procon.org
• Pew Research: www.pewresearch.org
• ProPublica: www.propublica.org
• Document Cloud: www.documentcloud.org
• The Center for Public Integrity:
www.publicintegrity.org
• NewYorkTimes Room for Debate:
www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate
