Handling
Contention
Do Not Refute as such; Do Not Mock; Avoid Negative Facial Expressions and Excessing Sighing; Be Friendly.
Only Ask Questions
EXAMPLE:
You are presented with the following as proof of another's conviction:
Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left
Authors
of Study:
Philip
Cafaro, Pernilla Hansson,Frank Götmark
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320722001999
Read the study, while asking yourself these questions (Note: For online investigative critical thinking; patience and more sleuthing required, as needed)
______________________________
On Specifics:
Who
are the authors of this study?
What
are their backgrounds?
Who
was involved in their education and training? (Is this a factor? Why or why
not?)
Would
you say that the study is all factually true or that some of
it is true (i.e., only to the extent of the study's inherent limitations, viz.,
it is one study among many studies)?
If
it only selects studies that support its preferred study's position (accepting
other studies with only minor deviations) is that properly scientific and/or
does that concern you?
---------------------------------
Note:
Are you going to quit reading at this point?
---------------------------------
What are the bona fides of the journal that published them?
Are
"bona fides," (whose bases for being bona fides, once being
closely examined) reliable?
What are this journal's published commitments to science, biology, bio-diversity and ethics?
Are
each of those clearly defined so as to remove presumptions as to what they
are actually supporting? For example, does "peer-reviewed science" mean
only "those who think like them" and exclude peers who disagree with
them who may have been excluded from the "peerage" groups:
academic/clinical/think tank institutions? [the consensual reality and culture
trance test]
Who
and what are the bona fides of the website on which the journal is featured and the article
has been published? Are we able to judge the degree of credibility from that
examination?
How do the images and text "flow" to produce a psychological effect upon those viewing its content?
Does
that overall effect promote a sense of comfortable credibility? Why or why not?
Where might that content of the study's subject matter fall on the objective/subjective scale? Or better yet, is it possible to rate any content in such a way? If possible, why; or if not possible, why not?
More Generally
How
do the parts of a presentation relate to the whole of its message to
viewers/readers? Namely, the holistic effect.
Is the message one that is embedded with coded language intended to steer the judgment and opinion of viewers/readers by appealing to their preferred socio-cultural biases? (More to the point, how closely do the values presented in the study align with those that are broadcast in the media?)
Does one need an advanced degree to truly grok what "the messenger" is conveying? Why or why not?
Is the analysis of how a message is related connected to the so-called B.S. detector? If so, how so?
Can you apply the above questions that are begging a deeper analysis to the following diametrically opposed stance?:
http://annavonreitz.com/bunnymath.pdf
Finally: Is it possible that the thesis of the above study is presented in such a way so as to be acceptably-geared to all empathizers with nature's bio-diversity in order to play on one's naturalistic sympathies (while tending to throw attitudes and concerns about humans as artificial and harmful)? In other words, "My God, who would be against the flourishing of our planet's flora and fauna except non-caring, greedy human exploiters?"
 |
| Grammar error: not "life"; "lives." OK? Approach others with loving care. |
No comments:
Post a Comment