PHIL 447N Week 4 Discussion Question 2 – Baloney Detection - Discussion Graded An A

Post 1 I decided to sway a bit away from the typical fallacies and go with "Argument" from outrage fallacy. Our book defines "Argument" from outrage as an appeal-to-emotion fallacy that occurs when a speaker or writer “supports” a contention by trying to make us angry rather than by producing a real argument (Moore, 2014, p.442). For example, I would like to use the recent deaths of the men by the hands of police officers. I have noticed that instead of producing hard facts the media like to make it a race war by stating "black" men instead of "men". They like to play up the issue of the race to get everyone angry about the fact that those 4 young men were shot by police officer or just died by their actions. Prime example would be the recent rioting in Baltimore. Because the issue of race was played up so much that got people angry enough to riot and not really pay attention to the facts behind those young men deaths. Reference Moore, B., & Parker, R. (2012). Critical Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill. Post 2 Good question! So let's start by defining baloney detection kit shall we? A “baloney detection kit” is a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods (Popova, 2011). So what would I keep in my baloney detection kit and why? I would definitely have the ability to distinguish between all the different micro expressions we as humans possess. It is important to be able to distinguish those expressions because it shows the feelings that a person is deliberately or unconsciously concealing. Reference Popova, M. (2011). The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking. Retrieved from Brain Pickings :