Emotional Appeal

[happy_Alex]

But why must these emotions govern rational decisions, rather than vice versa?

I didn't say they had to govern them, did I?

 

[happy_Alex]

Basically the OP was just to ask, do you feel emotional appeals belong at a scientific debate. And the answer of course is "emotional apppeal" <> "demonstration of causality", especially when the sample population making the emotional appeal is absurdly low versus the total number of cell phones in use. That's not a 'high horse'. That's scientific integrity.

Thing is, you just made a very unscientific statement just there

"especially when the sample population making the emotional appeal is absurdly low versus the total number of cell phones in use."

Implying that maybe tumours are okay in a proportion of the population, when so many people use them. That's not 'scientific integrity' that's just asking some people to make a sacrifice for the convenience of others.

 

[Globex]

Emotions get in the way of rational decisions? Come off it. The Nazis believed they were behaving very rationally when they put their theories into practice and they had allot of what they considered to be scientific evidence. "Don't get all emotional while I gas/shoot your family. Think of the science..."

The Nazis are more of a reason to be wary of emotional appeal than be wary of rational decisions. The whole basis behind Nazi pseudoscience was not logical reasoning, it was exploiting people's emotions for political gains.

Thing is, you just made a very unscientific statement just there

"especially when the sample population making the emotional appeal is absurdly low versus the total number of cell phones in use."

Implying that maybe tumours are okay in a proportion of the population, when so many people use them. That's not 'scientific integrity' that's just asking some people to make a sacrifice for the convenience of others.

You misunderstand (or are purposely trying to distort) GoodGame's intended meaning. It is not a case of "asking some people to make a sacrifice for the convenience of others" is is a case of "is it wise draw the conclusion that cell phone use leads to tumors based upon the anecdotal evidence of a small amount of people?".

 

[happy_Alex]

The Nazis are more of a reason to be wary of emotional appeal than be wary of rational decisions. The whole basis behind Nazi pseudoscience was not logical reasoning, it was exploiting people's emotions for political gains.



You misunderstand (or are purposely trying to distort) GoodGame's intended meaning. It is not a case of "asking some people to make a sacrifice for the convenience of others" is is a case of "is it wise draw the conclusion that cell phone use leads to tumors based upon the anecdotal evidence of a small amount of people?".

Ok, but my point is science has often very little to do with decision making. Take Abortion for example, the debate is not over the science but over the ethical issues. Another example might be GM foods, where there is plenty of science to talk about but also the far reaching social consequences. For example, who should own the rights to seed? What are the social consequences of removing farmers ability to seed their own crop...

 

[Oruc]

emotional appeal works pretty well in the UK, quite often get some mother campaigning to get banned