Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: "Actually, guns do kill people": Right-to-carry laws increase the rate of violent crime. [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)22. Confirmation bias, with an appeal to non-authority...
..which would be you:
It's a good study.
Serious climate scientist and researcher here. Youre wrong.
Serious climate scientist and researcher here. Youre wrong.
It's not peer-reviewed, and you are neither a law professor nor a criminologist
From page 1 of the study (*.pdf):
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510.pdf
NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply-entrenched beliefs.
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_non-authorities
http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html
Appeal to authority
The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. E.g., to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that a god exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief.
The appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority. E.g., to appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority. Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. However, even if he had been a rabbi, to appeal to Rabbi Einstein as evidence that a god exists would still be an irrelevant appeal to authority because religion is by its very nature a controversial field. Not only do religious experts disagree about fundamental matters of religion, many people believe that religion itself is false. Appealing to non-experts as if they were experts, or appealing to experts in controversial fields, as evidence for a belief, are equally irrelevant to establishing the correctness of the belief.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Actually, guns do kill people": Right-to-carry laws increase the rate of violent crime. [View all]
sharedvalues
Sep 2019
OP
The GOP keeps preventing the CDC from studying gun violence as an epidemic.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Sep 2019
#4
CDC researchers aren't holding their breaths until money appears for the studies.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
Sep 2019
#9
Data/evidence isn't going to convince enough people when it is an identity issue akin to
RockRaven
Sep 2019
#5
What's also rather unbelievable is that a lot of people don't realize the 2nd Amendment is void.
mapol
Sep 2019
#10
A man with a knife killed 8 children in Hubei province 9/2/2019. Is that not "mass" enough?
Marengo
Sep 2019
#23
Unlike assault weapons, knives, hammers and other guns don't make the news.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Sep 2019
#24