PT47.S3.Q23 - Television network executive: Some scientists

Comments

• BinghamtonDave Alum Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  September 2019 8716 karma

  I look at the "some scientists" argument (OPA) as a 3 link 2 bridge claim:
  ghost hunting tv shows contributes to the concept of superstition which leads to a blocking of the public's scientific understanding. "Will encourage" here I am looking at as somewhat causal. I'm looking here at the "stimulate" definition:
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encourage

  The statements then switch from OPA to the actual argument: conclusion first: these predictions have no merit. Why? because of this appeal to history and also this appeal to a particular argument that does not prove that the OPA is without merit.

  Let's pause for a second here: if this argument wanted to prove that OPA was baseless or without merit what it would have to do is prove that there are no bridges between the links that OPA lays out or prove that the links themselves are without merit. A good argument would have to say something like: in no way does ghost tv shows actually do this thing: foster superstition. Instead, what this argument actually does is say: here is a historical example of something that is commensurate with what OPA states is the case. In short, the argument that the television executive gives here does not disprove the line of reasoning in OPA, it does not arise to that level. As AC (A) points out: what the television executive says could actually happen at the same time as what the OPA says, meaning the TV executive's statements do not possess the power the executive thinks they do! The executive has mounted an argument that does nothing here.

  Now, there is a bunch to say about this flaw: it has appeared before, but we will leave that for another time!

  Best,
  David
• Trusttheprocess Member

  September 2019 776 karma

  As always David - you da best