2010+UnSpun+Chapter+6+Precis+and+Powerpoint+Period+8

Cole Rosenbaum and Brad Saunders AP English Lang Walker 8th 5 February 2010 Chapter 6 Précis Jackson, Brooks, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. “The Great Crow Fallacy.” //Unspun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation//. Illus. Signe Wilkinson. New York: Random, 2007. ddddddd 105-125. Print.

People often times misinterpret random observations for actual data, when in fact, random and simple observations do not yield hard evidence. In order to not be fooled by simple observations, consumers must have the knowledge necessary to differentiate between observations and true evidence supported by data. In order for facts to be true, there must be a collection of observations that all agree.

It is important to remember that your own perspective isn't always an accurate representation of what is actually happening. Our own filters or those of others, can block out many important aspects of the whole picture, whether intentional or not. Additionally, the whole picture might not be available for us to observe or experience, which is needed to gain a complete understanding of the situation. In chapter six of __unSpun__, Jamieson and Brooks utilize the example of the media limiting what they broadcast about the Gulf War to allow people to draw conclusions that the war was much more civilized and advanced then it actually was. Unlike what the media portrayed, the war was much less advanced. This demonstrates that sometimes what you don't see is more important than what you do see.

Even with hard evidence and real data, it can sometimes be easy to get lost in the emotions of a dramatic story, especially when it belongs to a well known public figure. These often vivid examples can cause people to come to incorrect conclusions. Compared to a dramatic story, real evidence is created by composing data from systematic studies that are backed by consistent results.

However, just because a study has data and evidence doesn't make it accurate or correct. Some studies can be swayed in a direction that benefits a particular group of people. When analyzing the reliability of a study, one should think about who is backing the information in the study, if the source has motivation to sway the data, what methods were used when collecting data, whether or not the data is current, whether or not there were any predispositions of those involved in the study, and to what extent the study approximated. One can assume a study is more accurate when the estimates arrived at by different methods are very similar. When this occurs, the evidence is known as "convergent evidence." When looking at the source of a study or statistic, it may be worth it to make sure that the source is neutral in the ideas or opinions presented by the study. For example, often times political campaigns will twist their data or approximate numbers to swing their way. Additionally, groups presenting data will repeat their claim in order to cause people to think that the claim is in fact true. Both these methods are used in order to swing public opinion in the direction of the group's ideas. Politicians tend to frequently make extreme claims backed by inaccurate studies. In order for these extreme claims to ring true, they must also be supported by extreme evidence. In order to determine the accuracy of a claim, one should examine the many different aspects of how the source arrived at the evidence they claim to support.

In addition to results and studies being swayed to support a group, the source of the evidence might only publish data they want you to see, or evidence that has possibly not been replicated. Jamieson and Brooks use the example of the cold remedy, //Cold-Eeze//, publishing data that favored their product, without repeating the results in later studies. //Cold-Eeze// supported their claim that their product greatly reduced the length and severity of a cold with data from a single study. After continued studying, scientists found mixed results on the performance of the cold remedy, causing stocks to plummet.

Groups can also present their claim through someone with authority in order to gain a sense of pathos. Presenting a claim by having someone who is considered an "expert" or "star" support the product, makes people feel that because they have authority, what they are saying is true. Despite the fact that they may be an "expert" in some area, they are not necessarily an expert in the area they are making the claim.

Similar to groups presenting their data through the use of an "expert," groups also use a sense of popularity to sell their claim. Groups will make such claims as "preferred two to one" or "top-selling," in order to support their products. As the audience of these claims, it is important to analyze why they are "top-selling." One should ask themselves if a product is popular because it's a quality product, or because they have a large advertising budget. Another advertising technique is the use of the "after this, therefore because of this" logic, meaning that something resulted because of the implementation of something else. Consumers must closely examine the claim and determine if the facts are actually connected, or if something else had caused the result. Most importantly, people must ask the question "What's the evidence?"