Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The backfire effect is a name for the finding that given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly. [138] [139] The phrase was coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler in 2010. [140] However, subsequent research has since failed to replicate findings supporting the backfire effect. [141]
The invincible ignorance fallacy, [1] also known as argument by pigheadedness, [2] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given.
Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism [1]) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it. [2]Since rationality involves conceptual flexibility, [3] [4] belief perseverance is consistent with the view that human beings act at times in an irrational manner.
You gather your own evidence, do your own thinking and make your own decisions about which ballot bubbles to darken with your No. 2 pencil. As it happens, there are quite a few of you out there.
The concept is also applied to situations in which people intentionally turn their attention away from an ethical problem that is believed to be important by those using the phrase (for instance, because the problem is too disturbing for people to want it dominating their thoughts, or from the knowledge that solving the problem would require ...
Nut-picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – using individual cases or data that falsify a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may support that position. Survivorship bias – a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.
Much as they demanded of people whose lives they ruined, let them take responsibility for their actions. And, if they have any conscience, let them demonstrate their remorse and ask forgiveness.
If one party to a debate accuses the other of denialism they are framing the debate. This is because an accusation of denialism is both prescriptive and polemic: prescriptive because it carries implications that there is truth to the denied claim; polemic since the accuser implies that continued denial in the light of presented evidence raises questions about the other's motives. [10]