User Tools

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
rhetoric:gish-galopp [23.01.25, 23:24:13] – external edit 127.0.0.1rhetoric:gish-galopp [22.08.26, 08:09:49] (current) – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation sascha
Line 38: Line 38:
 One strategy that can be observed time and again on social media is to link to a series of scientific studies that are all supposedly intended to support the respective position. These are usually brought forward by the principle of “the more the better”, without explaining the relevant aspects and limitations of the respective studies. One strategy that can be observed time and again on social media is to link to a series of scientific studies that are all supposedly intended to support the respective position. These are usually brought forward by the principle of “the more the better”, without explaining the relevant aspects and limitations of the respective studies.
  
-Other participants in the discussion are thus forced to either simply accept the study as an [[relevancy:authority:index|argument from authority]], or to painstakingly analyse the linked studies to find any relevant limitations in order to then start an unpromising discussion about the relevancy in the context of the current discussion.+Other participants in the discussion are thus forced to either simply accept the study as an [[relevance:authority:index|argument from authority]], or to painstakingly analyse the linked studies to find any relevant limitations in order to then start an unpromising discussion about the relevancy in the context of the current discussion.
  
-One suggestion to defend against this tactic is to ask for explanations on //why// these studies in particular are relevant to this discussion and whether the assumptions made in them apply to the specific situation. In other words, it should be determined if it is not a reference to a [[relevancy:authority:false_authority:index|false authority]].+One suggestion to defend against this tactic is to ask for explanations on //why// these studies in particular are relevant to this discussion and whether the assumptions made in them apply to the specific situation. In other words, it should be determined if it is not a reference to a [[relevance:authority:false_authority:index|false authority]].
  
 Another hint: on closer inspection, one will often find that the studies linked in this way are in fact //not relevant.// One should therefore assume that they are without relevance, until proven otherwise. Another hint: on closer inspection, one will often find that the studies linked in this way are in fact //not relevant.// One should therefore assume that they are without relevance, until proven otherwise.

This website uses cookies. By using the website, you agree with storing cookies on your computer. Also, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy. If you do not agree, please leave the website.

More information