Emotional Appeal

[Globex]

I was reading this article on CNN about the link between cell phone use and cancer when this caught my attention:

Ellen Marks of Lafayette, California, whose husband found out he had a brain tumor on his right frontal lobe in May, attended the hearing.
advertisement

The tumor is on the same side of his head where he held his cell phone, which he used about 30 hours per month. She believes the tumor is the result of cell phone use.

"I often threatened to throw it in the garbage, and how I wish I had," she said. "This horror could have been avoided with a simple warning."

Some points that I would like to make:
-This was just one case of a person developing brain cancer supposedly because of cell phone use
-As far as the article says, there is no proof that her husband's brain tumor was caused by cell phone use. It is based on her belief.
-This woman was allowed to attend an Congressional meeting

In your opinion, should the woman have been allowed to speak at the meeting? Do you think this kind of emotional appeal has any place at such a hearing before any strong evidence is gathered to prove/disprove the link between cell phone use and cancer?

 

[Neomega]

This is like the breast implant lawsuits.
There still is no scientific evidence silicone implants lead to disease.

She'll probably get millions from the cell phone companies, and soon, every person that has any kind of brain or craniofacial or blood disease will start lining up for the bonanza.

 

[Defiant47]

Emotional appeal is an instant turn-off for me (politically). You use emotional appeal, and I don't give a **** what you have to say anymore... until every one of your opponents also uses some kind of emotional appeal (then it gets tricky).

 

[happy_Alex]

yeh all well and good for you all to say, yet she's the one whose husband has cancer...

 

[slothman]

Good ole "Appeal to Emotion".
When I vote I won't be voting anyone who says something like "for the children".

 

[Globex]

yeh all well and good for you all to say, yet she's the one whose husband has cancer...

It is a tragedy but it is only one case (the correlation hasn't even be proven in that case). I am not denying that she is going through a lot of distress, I am questioning whether she should have been allowed to speak at that hearing. For things such as tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc. where the correlation between use and negative consequences have been proven, emotional appeal is useful for spreading the message to the public. When the correlation hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, such emotional appeal may be counterproductive.

 

[GoodGame]

Since it's ultimately a political hearing it's probably impossible to hold it to the exact same standards of say a scientific meeting. I'd say that an emotional appeal has no place in a scientific discussion, but it might be exhibit A in a political hearing, if only to represent what a fraction of the voting population thinks is an issue that needs to be addressed. And political hearings, especially high-profile populist ones, tend to have a degree of theatre to them, as guess what---the people holding them are usually thinking about getting re-elected.

Having an unqualified person saying they think something is so is really not science, of course. But have large numbers of such people, and have them be influential, and it of course is of interest to politicians. If it was a scientific convention, the onus would be on the women to make a strong reviewable presentation, and I'd expect her to be barred from presenting if she failed that goal.

I was reading this article on CNN about the link between cell phone use and cancer when this caught my attention:



Some points that I would like to make:
-This was just one case of a person developing brain cancer supposedly because of cell phone use
-As far as the article says, there is no proof that her husband's brain tumor was caused by cell phone use. It is based on her belief.
-This woman was allowed to attend an Congressional meeting

In your opinion, should the woman have been allowed to speak at the meeting? Do you think this kind of emotional appeal has any place at such a hearing before any strong evidence is gathered to prove/disprove the link between cell phone use and cancer?

 

[happy_Alex]

It is a tragedy but it is only one case (the correlation hasn't even be proven in that case). I am not denying that she is going through a lot of distress, I am questioning whether she should have been allowed to speak at that hearing. For things such as tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc. where the correlation between use and negative consequences have been proven, emotional appeal is useful for spreading the message to the public. When the correlation hasn't been thoroughly investigated yet, such emotional appeal may be counterproductive.

Thing is, the link between brain tumours and mobile phones has been proven, in any case causality does not have to be proven for her to speak at the hearing... ... after all what is she going to say?

 

[Neomega]

Thing is, the link between brain tumours and mobile phones has been proven, in any case causality does not have to be proven for her to speak at the hearing... ... after all what is she going to say?

No it has not been proven. There has been 1 study, and it was far from conclusive. Correlation =/= causation. How many times must this be said!?

 

[azzaman333]

No it has not been proven. There has been 1 study, and it was far from conclusive. Correlation =/= causation. How many times must this be said!?

Doesn't matter how many times you say "correlation =/= causation", people ignore it and make rash assumptions.

 

[Perfection]

No it has not been proven. There has been 1 study, and it was far from conclusive. Correlation =/= causation. How many times must this be said!?

Even more importantly, a study finding a correlation =/= the actual existance of such correlation.

 

[Atticus]

-As far as the article says, there is no proof that her husband's brain tumor was caused by cell phone use. It is based on her belief.

I don't believe it can be proven in single cases. If I smoked 5 packs of cigarettes every day for 50 years and caught a lung cancer, it still would be impossible to prove that smoking caused it.

No it has not been proven. There has been 1 study, and it was far from conclusive. Correlation =/= causation. How many times must this be said!?

Well, one study isn't maybe enough to show the correlation, but this "correlation is not causation"-thing: if the correlation was shown to exist, how else it could be explained? Brain tumors cause cell phone usage?

Also, in many cases correlation is the only way to investigate what is called causation. Iff you drop 1000 times temperature to -5 celsius and observe water freezing, you still have only correlation.

And more on topic: I don't understan how someone's personal misery could or should affect the decisions. People already know that it sucks to lose husband. How does the wife's presence add anything to the conversation?

 

[Brighteye]

And more on topic: I don't understan how someone's personal misery could or should affect the decisions. People already know that it sucks to lose husband. How does the wife's presence add anything to the conversation?

The point is that people who are pathetically dramatic and over-emotional are far more deserving than people who stoically bear their troubles, even if the trouble is the same.

'We' don't care about the degree of suffering, but about how much suffering we see.

It's embedded in various systems, from help for schoolchildren right through to disabled allowances; the most disabled woman in East Anglia (outside of permanent care) gets the minimum disability allowance because she puts a chirpy face on and does her best rather than sitting around moping.

 

[Riffraff]

Just out of interest - how would the mechanic of a correlation but not causation look in this case?

If you show that frequent use of mobile use increases brain cancer on the side you are holding the phone, the by far likeliest explanation would be to assume that the mobile phone caused the cancer.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Emotional appeal is an instant turn-off for me (politically). You use emotional appeal, and I don't give a **** what you have to say anymore... until every one of your opponents also uses some kind of emotional appeal (then it gets tricky).

So in other words, you're against that first person for about two whole seconds, then it gets tricky

 

[happy_Alex]

Get down offa your high horses the lot of ya!

What exactly is the point of this thread? To debate mobile phones and brain tumours? Or correlation and causality? Or just to show what emotional hard-asses you all are? Or just lack of life experience...

Politics is emotional because there are decisions that have to be made on issues that seriously affect peoples lives.

No it has not been proven. There has been 1 study, and it was far from conclusive. Correlation =/= causation. How many times must this be said!?

Every time you don't agree with something ?

 

[GoodGame]

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.

Get down offa your high horses the lot of ya!

What exactly is the point of this thread? To debate mobile phones and brain tumours? Or correlation and causality? Or just to show what emotional hard-asses you all are? Or just lack of life experience...

Politics is emotional because there are decisions that have to be made on issues that seriously affect peoples lives.







Every time you don't agree with something ?

 

[Brighteye]

Politics is emotional because there are decisions that have to be made on issues that seriously affect peoples lives.

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

 

[Globex]

Get down offa your high horses the lot of ya!

What exactly is the point of this thread? To debate mobile phones and brain tumours? Or correlation and causality? Or just to show what emotional hard-asses you all are? Or just lack of life experience...

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what place emotional appeal has in scientific debate and political debate. Discussion about cellphones and tumors and correlation/causation is going to have to happen because my example of emotional appeal concerns such things.

Politics is emotional because there are decisions that have to be made on issues that seriously affect peoples lives.

There is no doubt that emotion is part of politics. The question is, does this emotion have a positive or negative effect on the political process? Emotions tend to get in the way of rational decisions.

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.

Since it's ultimately a political hearing it's probably impossible to hold it to the exact same standards of say a scientific meeting. I'd say that an emotional appeal has no place in a scientific discussion, but it might be exhibit A in a political hearing, if only to represent what a fraction of the voting population thinks is an issue that needs to be addressed. And political hearings, especially high-profile populist ones, tend to have a degree of theatre to them, as guess what---the people holding them are usually thinking about getting re-elected.

Having an unqualified person saying they think something is so is really not science, of course. But have large numbers of such people, and have them be influential, and it of course is of interest to politicians. If it was a scientific convention, the onus would be on the women to make a strong reviewable presentation, and I'd expect her to be barred from presenting if she failed that goal.

Excellent posts BTW.

 

[happy_Alex]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what place emotional appeal has in scientific debate and political debate. Discussion about cellphones and tumors and correlation/causation is going to have to happen because my example of emotional appeal concerns such things.



There is no doubt that emotion is part of politics. The question is, does this emotion have a positive or negative effect on the political process? Emotions tend to get in the way of rational decisions.





Excellent posts BTW.

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..."