PHIL1290 - Ch. 4

Introduction

  • Care abt if beliefs are true & reliable → care abt reasons for accepting beliefs

  • Statements/claims can appear on their own w/o stated reasons

  • Present methods to assess unsupported claims


When Claims Conflict

  • When 2 claims conflict → can’t both be true

    • One has to be false

  • Not justified in fully believing either of the conflicting claims until you resolve conflict

  • Principles help evaluate claims

  • If new claim conflicts others that we have good reason to accept → grounds to doubt it

    • If competing claims are reports of personal observation 

      • Make further observation

  • Claim conflict w/ background info → good reason to doubt

    • Background Info – large collection of well-supported beliefs that we rely on to inform actions & choices

      • Basic facts of everyday things, beliefs based on good evidence, justified claims that is “common sense” or “common knowledge”

    • More background info that claim conflicts w/ → more reason to doubt

    • Always possible that conflicting claim is true → some of background info is wrong

  • Should proportion belief to evidence

    • If claim is dubious enough → maybe justified to dismiss

      • Claims neither worthy of complete acceptance & nor dubious enough to discard immediately

        • More evidence has in its favour → stronger belief in it

        • Weak evidence for claim → weak belief

        • Strong evidence for claim → strong belief

  • Not reasonable to believe claim when there’s no good reason


Experts & Evidence

  • When unsupported claim (no premise have been given) doesn’t conflict what we know → justified believing it cause it’s from experts

    • Expert – someone who is more knowledgeable in certain subject/field than most others

  • Experts more likely to be right than we are

    • Access to more info on subject

    • Better at judging that info

  • Not an expert – know only basic info relevant to certain field but can’t evaluate reliability of claim disagreement abt claim among experts – good reason to doubt

    • Claim remain in doubt until experts resolve conflict/you resolve conflict yourself

  • Appeal to Authority – fallacy of relying on opinion of someone deemed to be expert who isn’t an expert

    • May find selves disregard rule of thumb

      • Someone expert in one field doesn’t mean they’re an expert of another

    • May appeal to authority by regarding non-expert as expert 

  • 4 indicators for being considered an expert

    • Education & training from reputable institutions/programs in relevant field

    • Exp in making reliable judgement in field

    • Reputation among peers

    • Professional accomplishments

  • If reason to doubt opinion of experts → not justified in believing claim

    • Common reason to doubt – bias

      • Expert bias → motivated by smth other than search for truth

      • Suspect when:

        • Being paid

        • Express strong belief in claim even if there’s no evidence for support

        • Financial gain from actions/policies

  • There’s issues that we don’t want experts to settle for us

    • Matter of taste

    • Moreal, social, political

  • If intellectually conscientious → want to provide own final answers to questions

    • Draw on analyses & arguments provided by experts


Personal Experience

  • Accept claims based on personal exp – own or someone else

    • Reasonable to accept based on personal exp if there’s no good reason to doubt

    • Personal exp not infallible 

      • Factors that give reason to doubt reliability:

        • Impairment

          • If perceptual power impaired/impeded → reason to doubt

          • Perception & memory is constructive → what we perceive & remember is fabricated to a degree

        • Expectation

          • Perceive exactly what we expect to perceive

            • Tendency to perceive things that aren’t there

          • Powerful effect on our exps 

          • Pareidolia – illusion where our minds expect/are victims of suggestion

          • Intentional Blindness – being focused on task/set of stim → fail to notice dif, unexpected phenomena

          • Should double-check sensory info 

            • Careful abt conclusions made

        • Innumeracy

          • Quick judgement abt chances of smth happening → extra careful 

          • Misjudging coincidences

          • Gambler’s Fallacy – belief that past events affects probability in random event


Fooling Ourselves

  • 3 common & serious mistakes made when dealing w/ evidence:

    • Resist contrary evidence 

      • e.g.) ESP

    • Look for confirming evidence 

      • e.g.) White swans

    • Prefer available evidence

      • e.g.) Fear of flying

  • Tend to ignore evidence, deny it, manipulate it, and distort it

  • Learn to be alert to missteps when using & assessing evidence → do smth to min problems


Resisting Contrary Evidence

  • Resist/ignore evidence that flies in face of deeply held beliefs

    • Can be psych comforting → prevent further search for knowledge

    • Often see evidence that they want to see

    • Resist is subtle

      • Usually don’t reject evidence outright – crit in one-sided way

    • Commit to examine fav claims critically 

      • Try best to be even-handed when scrutinizing evidence we like/don’t like


Looking for Confirming Evidence

  • Confirmation Bias – tendency to seek out & remember info that confirms what we already believe

    • Go out of way to find only confirming evidence → accept claim that’s not true, see things that aren’t there, find confirmation that isn’t genuine

  • Good crit think – look for disconfirming & confirming evidence


Preferring Available Evidence

  • Availability Error – when relying on evidence not cause it’s trustworthy, but cause it’s memorable/striking

    • Psychological Available

    • Can lead to misjudgements abt risks in dif situations

    • In environ hazard controversies – alleged hazard & effects can easily & vividly imagined; sci data not so concrete/memorable

      • Imagined danger → public scare

  • Hasty Generalization – Draw gen conclusion abt whole group on base of inadequate sample of group


Claims in the News

  • News is major source of info that bombards us everyday

  • Info is piece of data & bundle of claims

    • Not always true or useful

      • Not knowledge – it isn’t true belief supported by good reasons

  • Transform info to knowledge → crit think


Inside the News

  • (+) of news-containing & news-generating sites

    • e.g.) Buzzfeed, Huffington Post

  • Not all news made equal

    • Quality depends on factors

      • Foremost factor – Money

        • News outlets – business w/ profit margins

        • Make most money from selling ad spaces for audience

      • Editors & reports skew reporting → not offend advertisers, audience, shareholders

  • Editors & reporters decide what is/isn’t newsworthy 

    • Help give clear/distorted picture of world

    • May not cover specific stories/aspect of story

      • Lead to conclude that there’s nothing happening when smth important is happening

    • Can alter own perception of news thru upping/downplaying specific aspects

      • Reporters have pressure to push story in specific way

        • Can slant news using specific language → manipulate tone of writing

          • Leave out/in specific details

          • Put facts in conspicuous/inconspicuous position

          • Insert arguments & personal opinions

          • Dramatize parts of story

          • Appeal to reader’s prejudice

          • Editorializing while reporting story


Sorting Out the News

  • Look for clues abt reliability of report

    • Crit approach:

      • Consider if it conflicts w/ what you have good reason to believe

      • Look for reporter slanting

      • Consider source

      • Check missing info

      • Look for false emphasis

      • Check alt news sources


Advertising & Persuasion

  • Ads designed to influence, persuade, or manipulate

    • Often oblivious to it

  • Crit think follow principle:

    • Generally have good reason to doubt ad claims & be wary of ad’s persuasive power

      • Most reasonable response to ad is w/ suspicion

  • Shouldn’t accept ad’s message/impact on use 

    • Purpose → sell/promote smth

    • Has rep for misleading messages

  • Persuasive techs

    • Identification – persuade thru inviting consumer to ID w/ attractive indivs/groups

    • Slogans – catchy, memorable phrases 

      • Gets attention, appeal emotions/concepts, associate w/ products/company

    • Misleading Comparisons – comparing in ads can mislead

      • Deliberate vagueness

      • Confident claims abt subjective thing

      • Exaggeration (puffery)

    • Weasel Words – water down claim subtly, enough to make it technically true but superficially misleading

      • e.g.) some, up to, as many as, reportedly, possibly, virtually, many, seems, perhaps


Summary

  • Need to eval unsupported claim

    • If conflicts w/ other claims we have reasons to accept → grounds to doubt

    • If conflicts w/ expert opinion → good reason to doubt

      • If experts disagree w/ claim → good reason to suspend judgement

    • Reasonable to accept evidence based on personal exp if there’s no reason to doubt

  • Lots of unsupported claims come from news reports

    • Biased/misleading

    • Intro to inaccuracies, biases, personal opinions

    • Skewed/Erroneous pics of issue/event

  • Not everything someone calls “fake” news necessarily is

  • Defence against misleading news reports – reasonable skepticism & crit approach that looks for slanting, examine sources, check for missing facts, and lookout for false emphasis

  • Ads – source of unsupported/misleading claims

    • Good reason to doubt claims

    • Wary of persuasive power of ads