A 30-something liberal Christian struggles with personal health issues, politics,
walking the dog, being a good husband, father and whatever else comes to mind.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See
Real simple argument for acting to save the environment and ignoring the skeptics.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This is a terrible argument. One cannot talk about possibility without talking about probability.
It's possible that a meteor could strike my house and I be killed. I can take precautions against this action, say live several miles underground.
Well, the negative conssequence if a meteor doesn't strike my house is I've put my self in finacial ruin by spending all that money for my meteor shelter. But the consequence if a meteor does actually strike my house is I die. Gee I guess I should start working on that meteor shelter so I can eliminate the worse possiblity. Right?
The above arguement holds no weight becasue while my house being struck by a meteor is possible, it is not probable.
So the question still comes down to "How likely do you think it is that humans are having such a dramatic effect on the environment that if left unabted it will result in our ultimate demise?" Then act accordingly.
This presentation is so biased it's not even funny. He draws all the boxes of equal size. This leads the viewer to think that all posibilites are equal. He also refers to people who do not agree with his theory as skeptics. To be skeptical means that a situation is clearly one way, but you believe it to be another way. Is the situation so clearly one way that to think the other way one must be a skeptic?
Please, look at this message with a critical eye. Look for the assumptions that he makes with his words and his choices. This is the kinds of critical thinking we as consumers of media must engage in if we wish to not be unduely influecned by every piece of media we consume.
ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH That Video is in many ways worse than the first.
So the "Devil's Advocate" Wears a stupid hat and blows things up while making his arguments. Gee lots of credibility to that image don't you think?
This method of persuasion is called innoculation. He presented a weakened verison of the opposing viewpoint and then proceed to tear it down. It's persuasion 101.
At least he's more honest here. It comes down to if you beleive that global warming is happening. It's all about the probability of the action occuring not the consequences.
The consequences however are the scary part. It's the part of the argument that speaks to the ethos or emotional appeal of the arguement and that's why he harps on it, not for any logical argument but becasue the emotional reaction of thinking about the world coming to an end is more likely to motivate one to action.
Beleive what you will and act accordingly. But this person's "Scientific" and "indisputable" truths are nothing more than basic persuasion tactics.
3 comments:
This is a terrible argument. One cannot talk about possibility without talking about probability.
It's possible that a meteor could strike my house and I be killed. I can take precautions against this action, say live several miles underground.
Well, the negative conssequence if a meteor doesn't strike my house is I've put my self in finacial ruin by spending all that money for my meteor shelter. But the consequence if a meteor does actually strike my house is I die. Gee I guess I should start working on that meteor shelter so I can eliminate the worse possiblity. Right?
The above arguement holds no weight becasue while my house being struck by a meteor is possible, it is not probable.
So the question still comes down to "How likely do you think it is that humans are having such a dramatic effect on the environment that if left unabted it will result in our ultimate demise?" Then act accordingly.
This presentation is so biased it's not even funny. He draws all the boxes of equal size. This leads the viewer to think that all posibilites are equal. He also refers to people who do not agree with his theory as skeptics. To be skeptical means that a situation is clearly one way, but you believe it to be another way. Is the situation so clearly one way that to think the other way one must be a skeptic?
Please, look at this message with a critical eye. Look for the assumptions that he makes with his words and his choices. This is the kinds of critical thinking we as consumers of media must engage in if we wish to not be unduely influecned by every piece of media we consume.
This is actually the counter-argument a lot of people made to the post. He did a follow-up in an attempt to address that very argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=related
ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH That Video is in many ways worse than the first.
So the "Devil's Advocate" Wears a stupid hat and blows things up while making his arguments. Gee lots of credibility to that image don't you think?
This method of persuasion is called innoculation. He presented a weakened verison of the opposing viewpoint and then proceed to tear it down. It's persuasion 101.
At least he's more honest here. It comes down to if you beleive that global warming is happening. It's all about the probability of the action occuring not the consequences.
The consequences however are the scary part. It's the part of the argument that speaks to the ethos or emotional appeal of the arguement and that's why he harps on it, not for any logical argument but becasue the emotional reaction of thinking about the world coming to an end is more likely to motivate one to action.
Beleive what you will and act accordingly. But this person's "Scientific" and "indisputable" truths are nothing more than basic persuasion tactics.
Post a Comment