Kathryn Schulz Evidence Analysis

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

She begins the article by discussing the disparity between truth and a fact. Sommers would like students to interpret the material for themselves, ergo seeking out their own truth and facts; rather than compiling arguments from existing sources with no correlation to the material or individual’s argument. She taxes the students with the task of becoming the source and using fact to support their own argument. In fact, Sommers purpose of writing the paper is to explain why an individual uses sources, and to identify ways people can view the sources that they use for their

Comparison of latent fingerprints found at the crime scene with exemplar prints, comparison of bite marks on a victim, DNA evidence, hair and fibre matching are some of the example of pattern comparison in forensic science (Coyle, Field & Wenderoth, 2009). Comparison of pattern evidence in forensic science is to determine whether the same kind of the properties of forensic traces may have come from a common (or related source) (Found & Edmond, 2012). There are varieties of techniques in forensic pattern evidence that make associations between physical traces. The association of one or more traces might be helpful in the investigation of a crime that usually can support an inference (Cole, Berthental & Seelagy, 2016).

The two ways of thinking that Schulz explains in her essay are “unmodified assertions” and “self-subversive thinking.” She compares the user of unmodified assertions to a “confident bulldozer.” Unmodified assertions include words like, ‘always,’ ‘never’ and ‘best/worst,’ while self-subversive thinking includes types of words such as ‘but;’ those that show a change in thinking. Schulz ___thesis___? Although both types of thinking are very important, generally people take evidence in both ways; people typically apply a mix of the two to the ways they think and speak. ? “[…] evidence is the engine that drives the entire miraculous machinery of human cognition” (Schulz, 364).

Authors have many strategies when it comes to winning over their reader to their side on a topic even if it means that they will target their opponent to make them look bad. In the articles by Steve Greenberg and Michael Weinreb we will look at the way they try to get the reader to join into their opinion of the topic by appeal to the persons logos, pathos, and ethos. By doing looking at the articles and breaking them down we can see how the author makes his argument by using rhetorical strategies and logical fallacies.

Testimonial injustice involves preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience; that cause any individual to put a label another individual’s words as a credibility deficit or a credibility excess. Fricker highlights, anyone can be a victim of epistemic injustices. In this paper, I will support Fricker’s argument that identity preconception and prejudgments create credibility deficits consequently hindering right practice of epistemic that everyone should have.

Throughout the course of history there have been numerous conversations and debates addressing religion, myth, and one’s ability to reason with both of them. The notion of one’s ability to reason with religion and myth has left openings in the conversations of moderations and the various interpretations within the two mediums. Many theorists have been a part of this conversation. Among these theorists are Sam Harris, Rudolf Bultman and Karen Armstrong. Initially when one first enters these conversations about religion and reason many resort to arranging these theorists in a way that would depict that they have conflicting views. An example of this method would be Benedict Farrell in his Call for papers version one. Farrell throughout his paper

“Let me keep my distance, always, from those who think they have the answers. Let me keep company always with those who say “Look” and laugh in astonishment and bow their heads” (Oliver, 2009, p. 62). The words of Mary Oliver surface the value of ambiguity in the face of certitude. They reflect the stance of humility integral to the role of a truth seeker. It is anticipated that in proving a theory or belief, one seeks evidence in pursuit of truth to provide clarity around unanswered questions. For some, evidence is understood as a “collection of facts believed to be true” (Melnyk, 2015, p. 4). For others, evidence is “something that yields relative confidence in the truth of some proposition that can’t be either logically proven or directly

Charles Seife capitalized on a pop culture motif when titling his 2010 book on ways numbers have been expressed or manipulated to mislead voters and consumers. Truthiness, the 2006 Miriam-Webster word of the year, has been on the books since the 1800s, but comedian Stephen Colbert gave the word new meaning and a popularity it has never seen before when he defined it as “truthy not facty”. Colbert further explains truthiness as ‘truth that wouldn’t stand to be held back by facts’. Proofiness, while building off of that theme, implies something even more sinister because it refers to deliberate and purposefully misleading an audience through the use of deceptive numbers and statistics. Unfortunately, Seife doesn’t limit his inventive word formation to the title. He produces more words and phrases that he has made up for the purpose of application to a particular numerical fallacy that the he has observed. Examples include ‘causistry’, ‘randumbness’, ‘disestimation’, and ‘ Potemkin Numbers’. While Saife provides

A trace of evidence, a traced drawing, a trace of what once was there. The word trace appeals to different people based on the context around a word. To most, trace is simply a word.To a detective, it might bring back a murder case that went unsolved. To an artist, it creates memories of first learning to draw from the how-to books,. To me, it reminds me of the house I lived in on Iroquois Trace. In this house, many first memories were created: first tooth to lose, first house where my family got a dog, first house where I took the bus to school. While this house left a trace of happy memories, my most vivid memory is this is the house where my parents decided to get a divorce.

In an article published by Washington Post, “Ohio town hold rare history: Races mix freely for nearly 200 years” talks about how a town named Longtown in Ohio have been a mixed race town for many years and has recently been getting hate because of their way of thinking. This article persuades readers to change their point of view of how all races should not judge each others by the way they look, but by their personality. The article gives examples of people criticizing the town on their believes and practices. The writer tries to persuade the reader by stating, “Yet Keiser doesn’t consider himself white or black, and instead calls himself by the old term ‘colored.’” By informing the reader that people in Longtown are confident with their race and skin tone, the reader might change their point of view if they thought differently

Imagine a circle, and within this circle is our society, our religious beliefs, our political idealizations, and our culture. In his essay, “The Ethics of Belief”, W.K. Clifford wrote, “It’s always wrong, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (1879, pg. 190). Specifically, W.K, Clifford was contemptuously referring to our habit of clinging to our personal biases when there was no evidence to substantiate those beliefs, and/or despite evidence that directly contradicted those beliefs. W.K. Clifford advocated that we should utilize rational thought in order to uncover the truth, and cautioned against taking any actions prior to examining all the facts. Otherwise, W.K. Clifford warned we as a society would “…sink back into savagery” (190). At that point, W.K. Clifford touches upon the concept of what lurks outside our circle of society and culture: our primitive nature.

In Why People Believe Weird Things, Michael Shermer’s ultimate goal is to explain, in great detail, to his readers his opinion of certain topics. The book is a collection of sections about different subjects that are controversial in the minds of many people today, and in the past. In each section, Shermer presents the arguments of the believers, and presents his own opposing view. Along with just his own opinions and support, he also includes the facts and opinions of many other well known opposers as well. While he may be aiming to disprove a certain subject, Shermer does so with delicacy, and remains civil for most of his arguments. The topics of the arguments range from alien abductions and ghosts to the very delicate topics of the Holocaust and religion. Along with trying to explain to his readers the truths and fallacies of his topics, unavoidably, he is also trying to persuade his readers into believing as he does, from an arguably more enlightened and educated point of view.

Walton pushes a theory of fallacies much farther than the preceding decade. He not only gives examples where a fallacy may be justifiable or not, but he examines how the latest thinking on fallacies “allows for . . . an epistemic interpretation in some contexts of dialogue and a dialectical interpretation in other contexts” (319). In other words, while in the Eighties we may have viewed the context in the subject, in the Nineties we view the context of the discussion, and subsequently the rhetors involved, as well as the subject.

In the former text, Potter develops a systematic account of the way versions are built as objective, as mere descriptions of actions or events. This addresses the question of how speakers manufacture the credibility of versions, and how this building can be challenged and undermined. Taking the example of attitudes again, this work considers the way in which versions can be produced to generate evaluations as features of the objects and events rather than positions or dispositions of speakers. This is clearly a key task when talk is about delicate or controversial topics, where motives and dispositions may be closely inspected. Thus constructing a version of a minority group that simultaneously produces negative characteristics (e.g. involvement with sexual violence) combined with a display of ‘sympathetic’ motivation toward that group (perhaps drawing on one of the culture repertoires discussed above) can work to avoid being seen as having racist attitudes. It should be noted the way the relationship between ‘mind’ and ‘the world’ is reworked here in the talk. One of the achievements of Discursive psychology has been to highlight how crucial this relationship as a practical feature of interaction. People construct versions of the world that have implications for their own disposition and thoughts;