 |
"These same type of studies found that Tom & Jerry and Looney Toons caused violent behavior in children and yet I grew up to be a pacifist, so excuse me when I say research psychologists have way too much time on their hands and they should do SOMETHING to earn their money instead of inventing bogus research for grant money."
And yet I grew up to be a pacifist,
The research does not say ALL who watch these cartoons will grow up to be violent. That is like saying ALL who take prescription meds will have side effects because studies show that people have side effects.
And research isn't an attempt to prove something is true. It's to find out if it's true or not true, or sometimes to just look for a correlation, leading to further research.
Hi metalsitartist
I take this to mean that your statement."Students found that Tom and Jerry caused violent behaviour in children..." to be the fallacy you are pointing out. Joy is on the right track with her response.
This statement is not a fallacy as such. There are a number of reasons for this but the main one is that it involves science investigating causation. I can give you a detailed explanation if you wish. However, I would suggest you don't include your own adjunct after the fact.
I think you misses the point of the post. The 'adjunct' is the fallacy the OP is questioning. Not cartoons and violence.
I concede any matters of logic to Tuttyd, from what I have read in other posts.
This doesn't sound like a 'find the fallacy' question put forth by a teacher, but a teacher who wrote 'this is a fallacy' on the statement put forth by the student, and the student wants to know why.
If a fallacy is an argument that uses poor/faulty reasoning, then it almost seems like the statement is full of fallacies - or none at all, as tutty says. Maybe he will weigh back in.
- Equating 'these same type of studies' with violent cartoon studies? But we don't know what those other studies are.
- Declaring that the cartoon studies found that cartoons caused violent behavior in children? - we don't know which ones are being referenced and what they concluded, but if they did, he is free to decide that they are bogus conclusions.
- Concluding that one person growing up to be non violent meant something about the studies? - he really doesn't draw that conclusion (even if he strongly suggests it), just leaps to expressing an opinion.
What says tuttyd?
This is possible but I tend to think this is a personal inquiry but you could be correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
As far as the first part of the question is concerned it is impossible to say. One would actually need to look at the study to find any fallacies. For example, one might look for statistical fallacies in the research.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
The second part of the statement is a opinion and does not stand up very well to examination.
Exactly. Except to add that we don't know anything about the original study as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
I get it now. I was assuming OP was only talking about the research and was adding his/her personal comments as part of the explanation. In fact he/she is asking about the statement as a whole.
In that case there are two fallacies. There is an ad hominem attack on what psychologists do in the spare time. Rather than attacking their research.
The reference to personal experience as an explanation is known as evidence from anecdotes fallacy.
Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Now I'm confused. But I'll work on it.
Hi JoyQuote:
Originally Posted by joypulv
Growing up as a pacifist is the evidence from anecdotes fallacy and claiming the psychologists have too much spare time is the ad hominem fallacy.
I just spotted another one, but we leave it at that for the time being.
I'm more confused by the differences in the way you looked at the question.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 PM. |