“Listen to his performance of “Boys of Kilmichael” in London’s Brixton Academy on St. Patrick’s Day, 1994. Then compare that to any other version of the song – Jimmy Crowley, Donie Carroll, or Oliver Kane. There is no comparison. The others are pretty. MacGowan makes you want to go out and kill an Englishman. Isn’t that what rebel songs are supposed to do?””
“Seventy-seven percent of Americans think it’s safer to talk on a hands-free phone than on a handheld phone. The empirical evidence shows otherwise. The evidence shows that the deficit in driving skill has nothing to do with holding or not holding the phone but with the distraction that comes from talking on the phone while driving. The problem is with the eyes, not the hands. The dangers of hands-free phone use while driving might be amplified by another illusion, the illusion of confidence, by deluding a driver into thinking that she can drive safely while talking on the phone as long as her hands are free. Despite your belief in your abilities to multitask, “the more attention-demanding things your brain does, the worse it does each one.””
“In fact, there is good scientific evidence to support the notion that being really intelligent and knowledgeable can be a disadvantage to some thinkers because of the increased ability to come up with rationalizations in defense of a position one originally adopted for inadequate reasons. There are many reasons why smart people sometimes believe dumb things. The smarter one is, the easier it is to see patterns, fit data to a hypothesis, and draw inferences. The smarter one is, the easier it is to explain away strong evidence contrary to one’s beliefs. Also, smart people are often arrogant and incorrectly think that they cannot be deceived by others, the data, or themselves.””
“It’s understandable that we would believe many things as children that our parents and others in our society have passed on to us as if they were absolute truths, even though they may be nothing but traditional prejudices. But why do we cling to what Mencken called the “palpably false” after we’re old enough to think for ourselves?””
Robert S. Carroll was an American author and psychologist, known for his exploration of the human psyche and the complexities of nervous disorders. His notable work, 'Our Nervous Friends — Illustratin...
“Perhaps the most common ad hominem fallacy is to attack the motives of the person making the argument. Critics of judicial decisions often cite suspected motives of a judge that might bias his or her decision, as if the judge’s motives were relevant to the cogency of the judge’s argument for making the decision. Even a biased judge can make a cogent argument in defense of a ruling. In any case, you can’t refute an argument by accusing the arguer of being biased. The bias of the arguer is irrelevant to whether the premises support the conclusion. People with good motives sometimes make fallacious arguments, and people with bad motives sometimes make good arguments.””
“There’s very little that Idi Amin and Newt Gingrich have in common, but they both used words to shape how people think about things without regard for the truth.””
“What makes it reasonable to accept anthropogenic climate change is not the fact that 95% of all climate scientists agree. It’s why they agree. Even non-experts can figure out that the experts agree: a survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject ‘global climate change’ published between 1993 and 2003 showed that not a single paper rejected the position that global warming is largely caused by human behavior. Climate scientists are not arguing about whether global warming is happening. They’re not arguing about whether humans are largely responsible for global warming. They may be arguing about what action to take. In that case, they should be considered as advisors by those who make policy. Unfortunately, many of those who make policy seem to be ignoring the climate scientists in favor of beliefs pushed by gas, oil, and other corporate interests. Those interests should be considered, but not to the exclusion of the science experts. A””
“Even so, sometimes the easiest way to get someone to dislike an argument is to get them to dislike the arguer. That’s why so many people use the Hitler card, the liberal card, the socialist card, the Tea Party card, or the atheist card. They know that by associating an opponent’s position with someone or some group their audience will consider evil, they can persuade many to reject their opponent’s arguments without even considering the evidence presented in those arguments. This also saves the lazy person from having to prove that his position is the better of the two.””
“Attacking a person, rather than the person’s position or argument, is usually easier as well as psychologically more satisfying to those who divide the world into two classes of people”
“Critical thinking is unnatural. Following our feelings and emotions is more likely to motivate our behavior than well-reasoned arguments. We are as likely to be persuaded by irrelevant appeals as by relevant ones, and are more likely to produce slanted, selective, biased, one-sided, incomplete arguments than well-reasoned, fair-minded, reflective, accurate, complete arguments. We often prefer attacks on a person’s motives to attacks on a person’s reasons. We make assumptions that aren’t warranted, create straw man arguments out of fragments of opposing viewpoints, offer up false dilemmas, and draw conclusions hastily. It’s amazing we’ve made so much progress!””
“Most of us would not consider visiting a scientist’s laboratory to investigate whether he or she was following the procedures and methods described in published papers. In fact, scientific journals do not routinely send out investigative teams to investigate the honesty and integrity of scientists whose papers are accepted for publication. Peer review does not include a review of laboratories. The process is based on trust. It is assumed that scientists will not cheat, though it is known that occasionally a small number of scientists in any field will. Catching cheaters happens occasionally, but it does not usually happen by journals sending out investigative teams to laboratories. Once””
“A measles epidemic in Ireland (over 1,500 reported cases in 2000) has been blamed on Wakefield. Three children died. Fears of an epidemic in Scotland (where Wakefield once practiced medicine) and England were also fueled by Wakefield’s claims. Cases of measles in England rose to a 20-year high following the collapse in MMR immunization rates.””