en-us 2006 A weblog for the Fallacy Files website. http://www.fallacyfiles.org Benjamin Radford, who writes a "Bad Science" column for "Live Science", has an article on a misleading study of teen date violence. It sounds like a typical example of advocacy research. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072008.html#07242008 Does the reference to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" imply that such a right is "antecedent" to the second amendment? Does the use of the word "the", instead of "a", mean that the right to keep and bear arms is a "natural" right that the amendment is enacted to protect, rather than create? http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072008.html#07192008 A new "Newsweek" poll is out and, unsurprisingly, it shows Obama with a three percentage-point lead over McCain. Recall that last month's poll from the same magazine had Obama with a fifteen point lead, and was one of two outlier polls showing him with a double-digit lead. All other polls from about the same time period had Obama with a low single-digit lead, and the current poll is now in line with the other polls. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072008.html#07122008 The first blurb in the newspaper ad for the new movie "Gonzo" isn't the usual contextomy; in fact, I haven't seen the actual review, which doesn't appear to be available on the web. Instead, there's a different problem with this blurb: the quoted review is from "Vanity Fair" magazine, which is edited by Graydon Carter. Graydon Carter also happens to be the producer of "Gonzo". So, instead of quoting out of context, the blurb appeals to misleading authority of the third kind, that is, a reviewer who has a conflict of interest. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072008.html#07112008 Todd Riniolo, a psychologist, has a book out called "When Good Thinking Goes Bad", which has a highly positive blurb from Michael Shermer--hopefully, he isn't quoted out of context. Of course, I'd love to receive a review copy. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072008.html#07082008 Before getting to the second chapter, here's an update on the previous one, specifically, the use of an optical illusion to slow traffic. I recently saw a CNN television report on the use of an optical illusion designed to make drivers think that there are speed bumps in the road, thus slowing them down. This is a different type of illusion than the one discussed in the book, which involved painting white stripes on the street that grow closer together in order to give drivers the illusion that their cars are speeding up, encouraging them to compensate by braking. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072008.html#07072008 The fact that Wikipedia is often the only source on the web for some types of information--or, at least, the only free source--is no doubt one reason why it is so widely used. Unfortunately, it is also the source for some types of misinformation. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06302008 Alan Wolfe has a lengthy article in "The New Republic" about the influence on economics of work in the psychology of cognitive biases. In the course of the article he reviews Dan Ariely's new book "Predictably Irrational", which I've mentioned here before and am in the middle of reading. Our Book Club book, "Nudge", also gets a passing mention. Here are a few miscellaneous comments on the article. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06292008 An ad for the Swedish film "As it is in Heaven" has the blurb: "'Masterful.'-Hollywood Reporter". The only occurrence of that string of letters in the review from that publication is in the sentence: "The rest of the cast offers sterling work as a range of characters MASTERFULly established by Pollak and his co-scriptors." (Emphasis added.) Thus, an adverb modifying "establish" becomes an adjective presumably applying to the movie itself. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06272008 When polls get conflicting results, what can you do? How about believe the one whose results you like best, and dismiss the others? But that's confirmation bias! Try looking at other polls taken about the same time, instead. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06262008 Linguist Arnold Zwicky has an interesting post with the above title on types of ambiguity. When I first read the title, I thought that it was about ambiguities found in textbooks. However, none of the "in-the-wild" examples are from textbooks; rather, what Zwicky means by a "textbook" ambiguity is one that is "just the sort" that is found in textbooks, that is, a "textbook" ambiguity is a paradigmatic one, which is fit to be a textbook example. I don't know whether Zwicky intended his title to be ambiguous, but I thought it amusing that a post on ambiguity should have an ambiguous title. Zwicky's post is slightly linguistically technical, so here are some terminological notes and comments on the article. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06242008 Here we go again. The liberal group MoveOn has a new video that shows an infant boy with his mother, who says: "Hi, John McCain, this is Alex, he's my first. So far, his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. So, John McCain, when you said you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06192008 Wang hurt in Yanks' blowout win http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06162008 A couple of years ago, I wrote an entry about the International Astronomical Union's debate about redefining the word "planet" to exclude Pluto. In the end, the IAU decided to introduce a category of "dwarf planet" that would include Pluto and a few other known solar system objects. I criticized this decision on the grounds that, as defined, the categories of "planet" and "dwarf planet" were disjoint, which goes against the usual meaning of "dwarf" and is, therefore, likely to be confusing. I argued, instead, that a new term should be introduced for the new category, such as the suggested "pluton". http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive062008.html#06122008