Science Technology and Philosophy

 

The Logic Referee https://www.google.com/search?q=logic+referee&source=lnms&tbm=isch



List of fallacies

A fallacy is reasoning that is logically incorrect, undermines the logical validity of an argument, or is recognized as unsound. All forms of human communication can contain fallacies.

Because of their variety, fallacies are challenging to classify. They can be classified by their structure (formal fallacies) or content (informal fallacies). Informal fallacies, the larger group, may then be subdivided into categories such as improper presumption, faulty generalization, error in assigning causation and relevance, among others.

The use of fallacies is common when the speaker's goal of achieving common agreement is more important to them than utilizing sound reasoning. When fallacies are used, the premise should be recognized as not well-grounded, the conclusion as unproven (but not necessarily false), and the argument as unsound.[1]


Long List of Fallacies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies 



A List of Fallacious Arguments

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html 

Master List of Fallacies

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Logically Fallacious

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies 



Alphabetical List of Fallacies:


Fallacy Files

http://fallacyfiles.org/ 




More Fallacy Sites

https://www.nizkor.org/fallacies/

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/ 

https://effectiviology.com/category/logical-fallacies/ 



Logic Itself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic 


Epistemology - The Theory of Knowledge

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology 

https://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/ 


Argumentation Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory 


Analogy and Analogical Reasoning

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/ 


....


The 33 Strategies of Warfare

http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_33_Strategies_of_War 


The 48 Laws of Power (list of laws at page bottom) 

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/  


.....


Some interesting bias summaries in these lists; 


List of Cognitive Biases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases 


List of Memory Biases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases 


List of Social Psychology Theories 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_psychology_theories


……


Common Misconceptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions 


Category:Psychological theories 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychological_theories 


Confidence Tricks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks 


Hoaxes by Category

http://hoaxes.org/archive/categories  


Magic Tricks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magic_tricks 


Compliance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_(psychology) 


Persuasion Principles

http://changingminds.org/principles/principles.htm 


Distraction Fallacies

One way of winning an argument is to distract the person from the real point, leading them up the garden path of a side issue or something completely irrelevant to the real subject. The main argument may thus never be completed to a logical conclusion, especially if agreeing with the side issue can be substituted for the real agreement.




Distraction Fallacies

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/a_distraction.htm 

http://changingminds.org/principles/distraction.htm 

http://changingminds.org/explanations/perception/attention/confusion.htm 










 


Most Common Fallacies  

Straw Man fallacy - A person ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.


Circumstantial Ad Hominem - Involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances instead of and in place of the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.


Red Herring - An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. 


Shifting The Burden of Proof - The person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.: If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!


Appeal to Ignorance - This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. God must exist since no one proved he doesn't.


Appeal to Ridicule - Ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"


Appeal to Popularity - A claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. That most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim.


Appeal to Tradition - It is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always been done that way" The age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.


Slippery Slope Argument: ...a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question...


Enthymeme: A particular means of expressing a syllogistic argument which has one proposition suppressed—i.e., one proposition (either a premiss or a conclusion) is not stated.


Moving the Goalposts Fallacy: To change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage.


Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy - The attempt to justify a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action. Attempting to justify committing a wrong on the grounds that someone else is guilty of another wrong is clearly a Red Herring because if this form of argument were cogent, one could justify anything assuming that there is another wrong to point to, which is a very safe assumption.


Proving a Negative - A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim. A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.







A List Of Fallacious Arguments  


Browse Logical Fallacies

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end” – Leonard Nimoy

Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that weaken an argument, or tricks of thought used as a debate tactic in order to persuade people. They are commonplace in all types of debates and discussions – in politics, advertising, media, and our everyday conversations – whether they are used intentionally or committed unknowingly due to a lack of argumentation skills.

GUIDE TO LOGICAL FALLACIES

LISTS OF FALLACIES

A

ACCIDENT FALLACY

AD HOC

AD HOMINEM

AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT

ANECDOTAL FALLACY

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

APPEAL TO CELEBRITY

APPEAL TO COINCIDENCE

APPEAL TO CONSEQUENCES

APPEAL TO EMOTION

APPEAL TO FORCE

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

APPEAL TO NATURE

APPEAL TO NOVELTY

APPEAL TO PITY

APPEAL TO PROBABILITY

APPEAL TO TRADITION

ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY

ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY

B – D

BANDWAGON

BEGGING THE QUESTION

BURDEN OF PROOF

CHERRY PICKING

CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM

COMPOSITION

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT

DIVISION

E – G

ECOLOGICAL FALLACY

EQUIVOCATION

FALSE ANALOGY

FALSE DILEMMA

FALSE EQUIVALENCE

GAMBLER’S FALLACY

GENETIC

GISH GALLOP

H – R

HASTY GENERALIZATION

LOADED QUESTION

MIDDLE GROUND

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

POISONING THE WELL

POST HOC

RED HERRING

S – W

SLIPPERY SLOPE

SPECIAL PLEADING

STRAW MAN

TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER

TU QUOQUE

WHATABOUTISM

RELATED ARTICLES




The 48 Laws of Power



Law 1: Never Outshine The Master

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.ca/2013/10/law-1-never-outshine-master.html 

Law 2: Never put too Much Trust in Friends

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-2-never-put-too-much-trust-in.html 

Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-3-conceal-your-intentions.html 

Law 4: Always Say Less than Necessary

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-4-always-say-less-than-necessary.html 

Law 5: So Much Depends on Reputation

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-5-so-much-depends-on-reputation.html 

Law 6: Court Attention at all Cost

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-6-court-attention-at-all-cost.html 

Law 7: Get Others to Do the Work for You

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-7-get-others-to-do-work-for-you.html 

Law 8: Make Other People Come To You Use Bait

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-8-make-other-people-come-to-you-use.html 

Law 9: Win Through Your Actions - Not Argument

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-9-win-through-your-actions-never.html 

Law 10: Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-10-infection-avoid-unhappy-and.html 

Law 11: Learn To Keep People Dependent on You

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-11-learn-to-keep-people-dependent.html

Law 12: Use Selective Honesty to Disarm Your Victim

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-12-use-selective-honesty-and.html

Law 13: Asking for Help Appeal to People's Self Interest

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-13-when-asking-for-help-appeal-to.html

Law 14: Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-14-pose-as-friend-work-as-spy.html

Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-15-crush-your-enemy-totally.html

Law 16: Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-16-use-absence-to-increase-respect.html

Law 17: Cultivate an air of Unpredictability

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-17-keep-others-in-suspended-terror.html

Law 18: Isolation is Dangerous

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-18-do-not-build-fortresses-to.html

Law 19: Do Not Offend the Wrong Person

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-19-know-who-youre-dealing-with-do.html

Law 20: Do Not Commit to Anyone

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-20-do-not-commit-to-anyone.html

Law 21: Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-21-play-sucker-to-catch-sucker-seem.html

Law 22: Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness into Power

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-22-use-surrender-tactic-transform.html

Law 23: Concentrate Your Forces

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-23-concentrate-your-forces.html

Law 24: Play the Perfect Courtier

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-24-play-perfect-courtier.html

Law 25: Recreate Yourself

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-25-recreate-yourself.html

Law 26: Keep Your Hands Clean

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-26-keep-your-hands-clean.html

Law 27: Create a Cult: Play on People’s Need to Believe

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-27-play-on-peoples-need-to-believe.html

Law 28: Enter Action with Boldness

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-28-enter-action-with-boldness.html

Law 29: Plan all the way to the End

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-29-plan-all-way-to-end.html

Law 30: Make Your Accomplishments Seem Effortless

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-30-make-your-accomplishments-seem.html

Law 31: Get others to Play with the Cards you Deal

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-31-control-options-get-others-to.html

Law 32: Play to People’s Fantasies

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-32-play-to-peoples-fantasies.html

Law 33: Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-33-discover-each-mans-thumbscrew.html

Law 34: Be Royal in Your Own Fashion – Act Like a King.

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-34-be-royal-in-your-own-fashion-act.html

Law 35: Master the Art of Timing

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-35-master-art-of-timing.html

Law 36: Disdain things you cannot have

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-36-disdain-things-you-cannot-have.html

Law 37: Create Compelling Spectacles

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-37-create-compelling-spectacles.html

Law 38: Think as you like, but behave like others

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-38-think-as-you-like-but-behave.html

Law 39: Stir Up Waters to Catch Fish

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-39-stir-up-waters-to-catch-fish.html

Law 40: Despise the Free Lunch

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-40-despise-free-lunch.html

Law 41: Avoid Stepping into a Great Man’s Shoes

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-41-avoid-stepping-into-great-mans.html

Law 42: Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep Will Scatter

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-42-strike-shepherd-and-sheep-will.html

Law 43: Work on the Heart and Mind of Others

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-43-work-on-heart-and-mind-of-others.html

Law 44: Disarm and Infuriate with the Mirror Effect

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-44-disarm-and-infuriate-with-mirror.html

Law 45: Preach Change But Never Reform Quickly.

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-45-preach-need-for-change-but-never.html

Law 46 Never Appear Too Perfect

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-46.html

Law 47: In Victory Learn When To Stop

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-47-do-not-go-past-mark-you-aimed.html

Law 48: Assume Formlessness

http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-48-assume-formlessness.html 





The 33 Strategies of Warfare 



Part One: Self-Directed Warfare


1) Declare War on Your Enemies: The Polarity Strategy.

2) Do Not Fight the Last War: The Guerrilla-War-of-the-Mind Strategy. 

3) Amidst the Turmoil of Events, Do Not Lose Your Presence of Mind: The Counterbalance Strategy. 

4) Create a Sense of Urgency and Desperation: The Death-Ground Strategy. 


Part Two: Organizational (Team) Warfare


5) Avoid The Snare of Groupthink: The Command-and-Control Strategy. 

6) Segment Your Forces: The Controlled-Chaos Strategy.

7) Transform Your War into a Crusade: Morale Strategies.


Part Three: Defensive Warfare


8) Pick Your Battles: The Perfect Economy Strategy.

9) Turn the Tables: The Counterattack Strategy.

10) Create a Threatening Presence: Deterrence Strategies.

11) Trade Space for Time: The Nonenagement Strategy.


Part Four: Offensive Warfare


12) Lose The Battles But Win The War: Grand Strategy. 

13) Know Your Enemy: The Intelligence Strategy.

14) Overwhelm Resistance With Speed and Suddenness: The Blitzkrieg Strategy.

15) Control the Dynamic: Forcing Strategies.

16) Hit Them Where it Hurts: The Center of Gravity Strategy.

17) Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy.

18) Expose and Attack Your Enemy's Soft Flank: The Turning Strategy.

19) Envelop The Enemy: The Annihilation Strategy.

20) Maneuver Them Into Weakness: The Ripening For the Sickle Strategy.

21) Negotiate While Advancing: The Diplomatic-War Strategy.

22) Know How To End Things: The Exit Strategy.


Part Five: Unconventional (Dirty) War


23) Weave a Seamless Blend of Fact and Fiction: Misperception Strategies.

24) Take The Line of Least Expectation: The Ordinary-Extraordinary Strategy.

25) Occupy the Moral High Ground: The Righteous Strategy.

26) Deny Them Targets: The Strategy of the Void. 

27) Seem to Work for the Interests of Others While Furthering Your Own: The Alliance Strategy.

28) Give Your Rivals Enough Rope To Hang Themselves: The One-Upmanship Strategy.

29) Take Small Bites: The Fait Accompli Strategy.

30) Penetrate Their Minds: Communication Strategies.

31) Destroy From Within: The Inner Front Strategy. 32) Dominate While Seeming to Submit: The Passive-Aggressive Strategy.

33) Sow Uncertainty and Panic Through Acts of Terror: The Chain Reaction Strategy.


The 33 Strategies of Warfare

http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_33_Strategies_of_War 




Bothsidesism vs Whataboutism - False Balance vs ad Hominem 

(Creating the distinction under construction)


False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been credited with spreading misinformation.


Examples of false balance in reporting on science issues include the topics of man-made versus natural climate change, the health effects of tobacco, the alleged relation between thiomersal and autism and evolution versus intelligent design.


False balance can sometimes originate from similar motives as sensationalism, where producers and editors may feel that a story portrayed as a contentious debate will be more commercially successful than a more accurate account of the issue. Unlike most other media biases, false balance may stem from an attempt to avoid bias; producers and editors may confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance


Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive. Examples of misinformation are false rumors, insults, and pranks. Disinformation is a subset of misinformation that is deliberately deceptive, e.g., malicious hoaxes, spearphishing, and computational propaganda. The principal effect of misinformation is to elicit fear and suspicion among a population. News parody or satire can become misinformation if it is believed to be credible and communicated as if it were true. The words "misinformation" and "disinformation" have often been associated with the concept of "fake news", which some scholars define as "fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation


A manufactured controversy (sometimes shortened to manufactroversy) is a contrived disagreement, typically motivated by profit or ideology, designed to create public confusion concerning an issue about which there is no substantial academic dispute. This concept has also been referred to as manufactured uncertainty.


Manufacturing controversy has been a tactic used by ideological and corporate groups in order to "neutralize the influence of academic scientists" in public policy debates. Cherry picking of favorable data and sympathetic experts, aggrandizement of uncertainties within theoretical models, and false balance in media reporting contribute to the generation of manufactured controversies.


The formula is to amplify uncertainties, cherry-pick experts, attack individual scientists, marginalize the traditional role of distinguished scientific bodies and get the media to report "both sides" of a manufactured controversy. 


Those manufacturing uncertainty may label academic research as "junk science" and use a variety of tactics designed to stall and increase the expense of the distribution of sound scientific information. Delay tactics are also used to slow the implementation of regulations and public warnings in response to previously undiscovered health risks (e.g., the increased risk of Reye's syndrome in children who take aspirin). Chief among these stalling tactics is generating scientific uncertainty, "no matter how powerful or conclusive the evidence", in order to prevent regulation.


Another tactic used to manufacture controversy is to cast the scientific community as intolerant of dissent and conspiratorially aligned with industries or sociopolitical movements that quash challenges to conventional wisdom. This form of manufactured controversy has been utilized by environmentalist advocacy groups, religious challengers of the theory of evolution, and opponents of global warming legislation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy


An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem) is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by attempting to increase fear towards an alternative. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear


Fearmongering or scaremongering is a form of manipulation which causes fear by using exaggerated rumors of impending danger.


According to evolutionary psychology, humans have a strong impulse to pay attention to danger because awareness of dangers has been important for survival throughout our evolutionary history. This effect is amplified by cultural evolution when the news media cater to our appetite for news about dangers.


The attention of citizens is a fiercely contested resource that news media, political campaigners, social reformers, advertisers, civil society organizations, missionaries, and cultural event makers are competing over, according to attention economy.


Social agents of all kinds are often using fearmongering as a tactic in this competition for attention, as illustrated by the examples below.


Fearmongering can have strong psychological effects, which may be intended or unintended. One hypothesized effect is mean world syndrome, where people perceive the world as more dangerous than it is. Fearmongering can make people fear the wrong things and use an excessive amount of resources to avoid rare and unlikely dangers, while more probable dangers are ignored. For example, some parents have kept their children at home to prevent abduction while they paid less attention to more common dangers such as lifestyle diseases or traffic accidents. Fearmongering can produce a rally around the flag effect, increasing support for the incumbent political leaders. For example, official warnings about the risk of terrorist attacks have led to increased support for the president of the USA.


Collective fear is likely to produce an authoritarian mentality, desire for a strong leader, strict discipline, punitiveness, intolerance, xenophobia, and less democracy, according to regality theory. Historically, this effect has been exploited by political entrepreneurs in many countries for purposes such as increasing support for an authoritarian government, avoiding democratization, or preparing the population for war.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering


Mass media


Fierce economic competition is driving commercial mass media to rely extensively on scary stories and bad news in a competition that has been characterized as an emotional arms race. Stories about crime, and especially violent crimes and crimes against children, figure prominently among newspaper headlines. An analysis of US newspapers has found that between 10 and 30% of headlines involve crime and fear, with a tendency to a shift of focus from isolated crime events to more thematic articles about fear. In the United Kingdom, the news media have routinely used a focus on gory sex crimes as a parameter of competition. The continued focus on emotionally touching sex crimes has had a strong influence on politics and legislation in the country.


Product advertisements


Advertisers have also entered the arena with their discovery that "fear sells". Ad campaigns based on fear, sometimes referred to as shockvertising, have become increasingly popular in recent years. Fear is a strong emotion and it can be manipulated to persuade people into making emotional rather than reasoned choices. From car commercials that imply that having fewer airbags will cause the audience's family harm, to disinfectant commercials that show pathogenic bacteria lurking on every surface, fear-based advertising works. While using fear in ads has generated some negative reactions by the public, there is evidence to show that "shockvertising" is a highly effective persuasion technique, and over the last several years, advertisers have continued to increase their usage of fear in ads in what has been called a "never-ending arms race in the advertising business".


Author Ken Ring was accused of scaremongering by New Zealand politician Nick Smith. The Auckland seller of almanacs made predictions about earthquakes and weather patterns based on lunar cycles, and some of his predictions were taken seriously by some members of the public in connection with the 2011 earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearmongering



Yellow journalism and yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate, well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism



Fake news is false or misleading information presented as news. It often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money through advertising revenue. However, the term does not have a fixed definition, and has been applied more broadly to include any type of false information, including unintentional and unconscious mechanisms, and also by high-profile individuals to apply to any news unfavourable to his/her personal perspectives.


Once common in print, the prevalence of fake news has increased with the rise of social media, especially the Facebook News Feed. Political polarization, post-truth politics, confirmation bias, and social media algorithms have been implicated in the spread of fake news. It is sometimes generated and propagated by hostile foreign actors, particularly during elections. The use of anonymously-hosted fake news websites has made it difficult to prosecute sources of fake news for libel. In some definitions, fake news includes satirical articles misinterpreted as genuine, and articles that employ sensationalist or clickbait headlines that are not supported in the text.


Fake news can reduce the impact of real news by competing with it; a Buzzfeed analysis found that the top fake news stories about the 2016 U.S. presidential election received more engagement on Facebook than top stories from major media outlets. It also has the potential to undermine trust in serious media coverage. The term has at times been used to cast doubt upon legitimate news, and former U.S. president Donald Trump has been credited with popularizing the term by using it to describe any negative press coverage of himself. It has been increasingly criticized, due in part to Trump's misuse, with the British government deciding to avoid the term, as it is "poorly-defined" and "conflates a variety of false information, from genuine error through to foreign interference".


Multiple strategies for fighting fake news are currently being actively researched, and need to be tailored to individual types of fake news. Effective self-regulation and legally-enforced regulation of social media and web search engines are needed. The information space needs to be flooded with accurate news to displace fake news. Individuals need to actively confront false narratives when spotted, as well as take care when sharing information via social media. However, reason, the scientific method and critical thinking skills alone are insufficient to counter the broad scope of bad ideas. Overlooked is the power of confirmation bias, motivated reasoning and other cognitive biases that can seriously distort the many facets of immune mental health. Inoculation theory shows promise in designing techniques to make individuals resistant to the lure of fake news, in the same way that a vaccine protects against infectious diseases.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news


A moral panic is a widespread feeling of fear, often an irrational one, that some evil person or thing threatens the values, interests, or well-being of a community or society. It is "the process of arousing social concern over an issue," usually perpetuated by moral entrepreneurs and the mass media, and exacerbated by politicians and lawmakers.


Stanley Cohen, who developed the term, states that moral panic happens when "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests." While the issues identified may be real, the claims "exaggerate the seriousness, extent, typicality and/or inevitability of harm." The concept of moral panic can now be found in several disciplines, including sociology and criminology, media studies, and cultural studies.


Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory pedophiles; belief in ritual abuse of women and children by satanic cults; and concerns over the effects of music lyrics. Some moral panics can become embedded in standard political discourse, which include concepts such as "Red Scare" and terrorism. 


It differs from mass hysteria, which is closer to a psychological illness rather than a sociological phenomenon.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic


 Appeal to Emotion is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.


This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index


The "two wrongs make a right" fallacy involves the attempt to justify a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action. Attempting to justify committing a wrong on the grounds that someone else is guilty of another wrong is clearly a Red Herring because if this form of argument were cogent, one could justify anything―assuming that there is another wrong to point to, which is a very safe assumption. 


http://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html


Two Wrongs Make a Right


Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. 


This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it. 


It should be noted that it can be the case that it is not wrong for A to do X to B if X is done to prevent B from doing X to A or if X is done in justified retribution. For example, if Sally is running in the park and Biff tries to attack her, Sally would be justified in attacking Biff to defend herself. As another example, if country A is planning to invade country B in order to enslave the people, then country B would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent the invasion.


Xxxxhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html


Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their arguments which in the United States is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Variation of Two wrongs make a right imo;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right





https://www.visualcapitalist.com/50-cognitive-biases-in-the-modern-world/
No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)