Q1 - Journalist: One reason many people believe

[wj097]

Hi, I wasn't 100% confident ruling out (C). Here's my reasoning and would love be be checked.

Journalist argument DOES presume with out justification that ONLY evidence form experiments can support beliefs but not IN GENERAL. I thought if (C) did not have "IN GENERAL" in there then it would be a necessary assumption -- if you negate, there can be other things that can support belief, so even though one experiment was false, belief still be viable -- and thus flawed not stating explicitly.

Thx

[tommywallach]

Hey WJ,

Happy to help out on this one. Let's start by focusing on our core, and trying to figure out, in our own words/terms, what it is about this argument that isn't so good.

Conclusion: ESP is a myth
Premise: One researcher falsified data on ESP, and people believe data that shows ESP is real

The problem is that just because one person faked it doesn't mean that ALL the data is faked.

(A) Nothing personal here. They don't attack the researcher. He himself has admitted he faked stuff.

(B) This argument doesn't say that the reason ESP is a myth is because the general public believes it. The argument says it's a myth because of the falsified data.

(C) The argument does not assume that ONLY evidence from experiments can support beliefs. In fact, it states outright, as a fact, that many people believe in ESP because of experimental data. This is not an ASSUMPTION (which would be unstated/implicit), but a PREMISE (stated/explicit). Either way, the argument never says that evidence from experiments is the ONLY thing that can support beliefs. So two errors here: 1) The point is made explicitly, not implicitly 2) The argument never says it's the ONLY thing, just that it's ONE thing.

(D) This researcher admitted to lying to get grant money, but the argument never says that all scientists who want grants will fake their data.

(E) This matches up with our original flaw.

Hope that helps!

-t

[wj097]

(C) The argument does not assume that ONLY evidence from experiments can support beliefs. In fact, it states outright, as a fact, that many people believe in ESP because of experimental data. This is not an ASSUMPTION (which would be unstated/implicit), but a PREMISE (stated/explicit). Either way, the argument never says that evidence from experiments is the ONLY thing that can support beliefs. So two errors here: 1) The point is made explicitly, not implicitly 2) The argument never says it's the ONLY thing, just that it's ONE thing.

Hey Tommy, interesting one which I have different point of view.

So your definition of the argument includes "many people's beliefs", whereas I think that part is just background info.

The real ARGUMENT CORE of the journalist, I think, is "One falsified experiment data -> ESP belief is false"

One assumption for this core would be "only experiment data can support belief". If not then the argument falls apart i.e., cannot definitively say ESP belief is false, since there can be many other things one can provide as support, such as testimony, photograph, etc.

Reason (C) being wrong I think is the word "in general" since we don't know what journalist thinks about other matters outside of ESP.

Hope, I actually am providing a different perspective...

Thx

[visconzain]

Concerning C, please correct me if I am wrong, but the only reason that I cancelled it out is because it was too broad. Contained words like "in general", and "only", which could easily go beyond the scope of the stimulus. However, let us not forget that the stimulus says "one reason", which means that the people might have other reasons for believing in ESP beyond controlled experiments. The stimulus goes on to argue that ESP is a myth since one prominent researcher admitted to providing fake information. The unsaid assumption here is that experiments are the only reason for ESP, and the author thinks that he has proved that the experiments are not valid, therefore a belief in ESP is not valid. However, that does not make sense, because if this is only "one reason" why many people believe, then disproving one reason does not invalidate other reasons. And we also know for a fact that his argument for disproving this reason was not even the best. So, the argument does presuppose that only evidence from the experiment can support the people's beliefs, because he does not take the "other reasons" into account, experiments are only "one reason". So, I think he does make this mistake. However, the answer is really broad, and that invalidates it. Besides, if this answer were to be right, it would be right in the context of an assumption question, and not a flaw question. The argument does make this mistake, but as a flaw question, E was a better answer. What do you guy think of my breakdown here, does it make sense?