Critical Thinking 1010 Final Exam

Lord help me for I am a sinner, amen.

Facts behind advertising

1. designed to influence, persuade & manipulate

2. DOES successfully influence, persuade & manipulate us

3. we are often oblivious to its ability to influence, persuade, & manipulate us

Online advertising

Online advertising is more potent because not only is it easily accessible and constantly in your face, it is also inescapable. With thousands upon thousands of ads constantly cycling in front of our faces it is also inevitable that they gain their traction, garner our attentions, influence our purchases, etc.

fallacious

tending to deceive or mislead

paid search ads

Ads that pay to be the first thing a person sees when they google a certain thing.

Social Media Ads

shaped by your online profile information, usually sponsored and based off of what you interact with.

Display ads

shady banner ads

Native Advertising

fake infomercials that display themselves as important and factual in order to build higher report and credibility.

Old School advertising tricks

identification, slogans, misleiding comparisons, weasel words

Identification

plays on peoples impulse to IDENTIFY with a celebrity or character. Because if x celebrity likes and uses this product it MUST be good

Slogans

catchphrases and jingles designed to draw attention and have consumers naturally associate the brand /product with something.

Misleading comparisons

purposely vague ads that claim some type of “betterment” but don’t say what of.

Weasel Words

unsure words added to a sure claim. Ex: may, might, virtually, some, eco friendly, etc.

Political advertising

is any paid communication (TV, social media, mail, etc.) designed to influence voters by promoting or opposing candidates, parties, or ballot measures, aiming to get votes or financial support by shaping public opinion on issues or building name recognition

Misinterpretation

misrepresenting a video and using it a different claim than what it was originally.

Splicing

taking differing audios from a video/recording in order to conflate and twist the speakers words and form a new claim that aids your own goal (by usually making the opposing party look really bad)

Doctoring

altering footage and content of a video through photoshop in order to make a misleading claim

Microtargeting

a form of online targeted advertising that analyses personal data to identify the interests of a specific audience or individual in order to influence their actions.

Extreme partisanship

Those who are steeped in political tribalism, bigotry, zealotry, polarization, and conspiracy theories

Partisan blindness

For them, the idea they reject is impossible, and there can be no conceivable evidence or argument that would convince them otherwise. They will stick to their guns in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

negative partisanship

when beliefs are formed because of a hate for others.

Telltale signs of partisan blindness

1. you reject out of hand evidence that contradicts your beliefs

2. You wholeheartedly accept claims that support you w/o asking for evidence

3. You believe any news that contradicts your own is automatically fake

4. Your efuse to consider any belief that makes you uncomfy

Hyperpaartisan sources often….

warp perspectives & distort reality through inaccurate, unverified information, fake news, partisan propaganda, etc.

Motivated Reasoning

reasoning to support a predetermined conclusion

Fallacies Chp 13

Appeals to personal certainty, strawman “nutpicking”, radicalizing the opposition, whataboutism, motivism

Appeals to personal certainty

attempts to make a claim more believable by indicating that you are certain of what you’re saying.

Nutpicking

taking an extreme of a group and extending their ideologies, beliefs, and practices unto the rest of the group.

Radicalizing the Opposition

transofrming a generally acceptable claim into an outlandish one in order to make a counterclaim.

Whataboutism

Opposing an argument through the allusion of hypocrisy. Ex: Trump is a bad president! W-well what about Obama; he blew up kids!

Motivism

Dismissing the claim of an argument or it entirely because one believes the motive to be wrong.

Illegitimate reasons for accepting or rejecting political claims include:

• specific partisan groups that you side with

• opposing groups reject a certain source so I will too

• rejecting sources from partisan groups I do not like

• My political leader rejects a certain source so I will too.

Inductive argument

can render the conclusion PROBABLY true

Enumerative Induction

reasons from premises about individual members of a group to conclusions about the group as a whole. In such cases we begin with observations about some members of the group and end with a generalization about all of them.

target population

group as a whole aka the whole collection of individuals in a question.

sample

observed members of the target group (must be LARGE)

relevant property

what we are interested in; usually what the question focuses around & the premise that will give us out answer.

Hasty generalization

rely too much on a small sample size in order to draw a conclusion.

Representativeness

• sample size must resemble the target group

• if the sample does not properly represent the target group then it is biased.

Analogical Induction

Because two or more things are similar in several respects, they are likely to be similar in some further respect. Can only determine that a conclusion is PROBABLE to truth.

• The greater the degree of probability between the two things being compared, the more similar the conclusion is.

• The greater the number of instances that show the relevant similarities, the stronger the argument.

• The greater the diversity among the cases that exhibit the relevant similarities, the stronger the argument.

Opinion polls

opinion polls should (1) be strong and (2) have true premises. More precisely, any opinion poll worth believing must (1) use a large enough sample that accurately represents the target population in all the relevant population features and (2) generates accurate data

explanation

an explanation tells us why or how something is the case

Argument

an argument gives us reasons for believing that something is the case

Theoretical explanations

theories, or hypotheses, that try to explain why something is the way it is, why something is the case, why something happened.

cogent

clear, logical, and convincing

Rules of Theoretical Explinations

If the explanations in these arguments really are the best, then the arguments are inductively strong. And if the premises are also true, then the arguments are cogent. If cogent, we are justified in believing that the explanations for the phenomena are in fact correct.

EX:

• Neche did not come to class on Tuesday. It’s probably because it was really cold. Yep, Neche did not come to class because it was extremely cold outside.

TEST Formula (telling good theories from bad):

1. State the theory + Test for consistency

2. Assess the evidence

3. Scrutinize alternate theories

4. Test theories w/ criteria of Adequacy

Criteria of Adequacy

• testability

• fruitfulness

• scope

• simplicity

• conservatism

testability

claims in theories must be applicable and testable to real life. You must be able to prove & interact with elements of the the hypothesis in order to prove its true.

Fruitfulness

the ability of a theory to prove something is true/ discovering new information thus making it more believable as it is able to accurately provide more evidence.

Scope

the ability of a theory to explain multiple phenomena. Its diversity in explanation allows it to be more believable as it now toes the line of an universal truth.

Simplicity

The more complex a theory is, the less believable it becomes.

Conservatism

theories that fit within our perceived notions of common knowledge are most likely believed.