WEEK 1:
●DEFINATIONS
Scientism: claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.
Scientific: Anti Pseudoscience
Scientology: Religious Science
●LOGIC FALLACY
Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.
顾左右而言他;不相干的理由。[例:我承认这个方法不错,但问题是这事情整个就是荒唐的。 例2:我提议把申请奖学金的条件再弄得严一点。希望你也能赞成..现在学校本来就欠着债,再这样下去我们的工资都得受影响了。]
argument by gibberish
辩来辩去都是胡扯,这一点要找例子,去看网易新闻评论就行
inconsistency
自相矛盾
slippery slope
《如果丘处机当年没路过牛家村,中国是今天最发达的国家》
ad hominem
人身攻击:“这人品行不端,能唱出什么好听的歌来?”
Appeal to ignorance:Because some facts are in doubt, it is impossible to draw a conclusion.
19世纪的人:太阳的年龄不可能超过100万年,就算上面全是煤和氧气,也总该烧完了
(还可以引伸到“砖家说是对的,看来肯定不对了”类论点,但不用记)
Appeal to authority
爱因斯坦说它是对的,所以它对
Ad populum
大家都反对,这个建议肯定不好/三人成虎
●
Political use of science terms
• Sound science – favorable studies
that back up a belief.
• Junk science - studies that do not
back up a particular belief.
●DEEDS AND KNOWLEDGES:
Sir Richard Doll was the first to establish a link between SMOKING and cancer.
The two major reasons that agruments occur are SEMANTICS and differing WORLDVIEWS
●Dr. Carl Sagans Baloney Detection Kit
卡尔萨根:胡扯探测包
对于一个像伪科学的观点:
• How reliable are the sources of the claim? Is
there a reason to believe that they might have
an agenda to pursue in this case?
1 来源可靠么?
• Have the claims been verified by other
sources? What data are presented in support of
this opinion?
2 有其他的来源佐证么?数据?
• What position does the majority of the scientific
community hold in this issue?
3 主流科学界的观点呢。
• How does this claim fit with what we know
about how the world works? It this a reasonable
assertion or does it contradict established
theories?
4 符合自然规律么?和已有的理论冲不冲突?
• Are the arguments balanced and logical?
Have proponents of a particular position
considered alternate points of view or only
selected supportive evidence for their
particular beliefs.
5 合不合逻辑?要大家都来讨论,不能选择性忽视不支持的人。
• What do you know about the sources of
funding for a particular position? Are they
financed by groups with partisan goals?
6(类似1)理论的来源,是个什么情况?有没有政治目的什么的
• Where was evidence for competing
theories published? Has it undergone
impartial peer review or is it only in
proprietary publication?
7 竞争性的观点呢?有没有让持中立态度的人看过?
●DEFINATIONS
Scientism: claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality.
Scientific: Anti Pseudoscience
Scientology: Religious Science
●LOGIC FALLACY
Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.
顾左右而言他;不相干的理由。[例:我承认这个方法不错,但问题是这事情整个就是荒唐的。 例2:我提议把申请奖学金的条件再弄得严一点。希望你也能赞成..现在学校本来就欠着债,再这样下去我们的工资都得受影响了。]
argument by gibberish
辩来辩去都是胡扯,这一点要找例子,去看网易新闻评论就行
inconsistency
自相矛盾
slippery slope
《如果丘处机当年没路过牛家村,中国是今天最发达的国家》
ad hominem
人身攻击:“这人品行不端,能唱出什么好听的歌来?”
Appeal to ignorance:Because some facts are in doubt, it is impossible to draw a conclusion.
19世纪的人:太阳的年龄不可能超过100万年,就算上面全是煤和氧气,也总该烧完了
(还可以引伸到“砖家说是对的,看来肯定不对了”类论点,但不用记)
Appeal to authority
爱因斯坦说它是对的,所以它对
Ad populum
大家都反对,这个建议肯定不好/三人成虎
●
Political use of science terms
• Sound science – favorable studies
that back up a belief.
• Junk science - studies that do not
back up a particular belief.
●DEEDS AND KNOWLEDGES:
Sir Richard Doll was the first to establish a link between SMOKING and cancer.
The two major reasons that agruments occur are SEMANTICS and differing WORLDVIEWS
●Dr. Carl Sagans Baloney Detection Kit
卡尔萨根:胡扯探测包
对于一个像伪科学的观点:
• How reliable are the sources of the claim? Is
there a reason to believe that they might have
an agenda to pursue in this case?
1 来源可靠么?
• Have the claims been verified by other
sources? What data are presented in support of
this opinion?
2 有其他的来源佐证么?数据?
• What position does the majority of the scientific
community hold in this issue?
3 主流科学界的观点呢。
• How does this claim fit with what we know
about how the world works? It this a reasonable
assertion or does it contradict established
theories?
4 符合自然规律么?和已有的理论冲不冲突?
• Are the arguments balanced and logical?
Have proponents of a particular position
considered alternate points of view or only
selected supportive evidence for their
particular beliefs.
5 合不合逻辑?要大家都来讨论,不能选择性忽视不支持的人。
• What do you know about the sources of
funding for a particular position? Are they
financed by groups with partisan goals?
6(类似1)理论的来源,是个什么情况?有没有政治目的什么的
• Where was evidence for competing
theories published? Has it undergone
impartial peer review or is it only in
proprietary publication?
7 竞争性的观点呢?有没有让持中立态度的人看过?