Sections 4-7 Flashcards
Democracy depends on an informed citizenry, and it vital that citizens recognize bias, slanting and propaganda in news coverage.
•Any set of events can be viewed and interpreted from multiple points of view. News consumers should be open to a range of viewpoints and to question their own.
•To achieve objectivity, one must distinguish between facts and opinion/spin.
•Two genuine forms of objectivity are “the objectivity of intellectual humility” (knowledge of one’s own ignorance) and “the objectivity of fair-minded, multi-dimensional thinking.” An inauthentic version is “sophistic objectivity” where multiple viewpoints are considered and then dismissed to protect the status quo.
•The major media fosters sociocentric thinking, reflecting national and cultural bias. (Sociocentrism is seeing social conventions, beliefs and taboos of your society as “the only correct way to live and think,” according to Paul and Elder.)
•There is a bias in the mainstream news media towards reporting what is novel, strange, or sensational. This leads to news reporting which ignores important stories while the sensational is blown out of proportion.
How do critical thinkers approach the news as a source of information and avoid being manipulated?
- looking at events from multiple perspectives.
- assessing news stories for clarity, accuracy, relevance, depth, breadth, and significance.
- noticing the contradictions and inconsistencies, questionable implicit assumptions, and disputed facts in stories.
- questioning the sociocentrism in media accounts.
Uncritical Persons:
Intellectually unskilled thinkers
Skilled Manipulators:
Weak-sense critical thinkers
Fair-Minded Critical Persons:
Strong-sense critical thinkers
Fallacy:
An error in reasoning.
Ad hominem:
Dismissing an argument by attacking the person who offers it rather than by refuting its reasoning.
Appeal to authority:
To justify support for a position by citing an esteemed or well-known figure who supports it. An appeal to authority does not address the merit of the position.
Appeal to experience:
Claiming to speak with the “voice of experience” in support of an argument (even when that experience may not be relevant).
Appeal to fear:
Citing a threat or possibility of a frightening outcome as the reason for supporting an argument. This threat can be physical or emotional: the idea is to invoke fear. This is sometimes termed “scare tactics.”
Appeal to popularity/ popular passions:
Citing majority sentiment or popular opinion as the reason for supporting a claim. It assumes that any position favored by the larger crowd must be true or worthy.
Attacking evidence:
This approach focuses on discrediting the underlying evidence for an argument and thereby questioning its validity.
Begging the question:
Asserting a conclusion that is assumed in the reasoning. The reason given to support the conclusion restates the conclusion.
Denying inconsistencies:
Refusing to admit contradictions or inconsistencies when making an argument or defending a position.
Either-or:
Assuming only two alternatives when, in reality, there are more than two. It implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable—either x or y.
Evading questions:
Avoiding direct and truthful answers to difficult questions through diversionary tactics, vagueness, or deliberately confusing or complex responses.
Faulty analogy:
Drawing an invalid comparison between things for the purpose of either supporting or refuting some position. A faulty analogy suggests that because two things are alike in some respect, they must be alike in other respects.
