This is my first week in this class, and I already want to strangle motherfuckers. It's called Quantitative Literacy, and our first assignment was to find two advertisements that implemented logical fallacies to compel the audience. Then, of course, we were to analyze them, post them in the course forum, and discuss.
There are some people in this class that I consider to be pretty intelligent folks, however, I am utterly disgusted by pretty much everyone's initial responses. I've only responded to three so far, and I was forced to tear them apart, because they were just... all wrong. I don't know if these people didn't read the material, or if they just don't get it, but none of them are ascribing the correct logical fallacies to the advertisement claims. One person suggested that, because an ad for toothpaste claimed that it was recommended by the American Dental Association, it was a fucking appeal to popularity. (Face Palm) They then went on to describe an appeal to popularity, completely missing that the claim of the toothpaste ad was an appeal to authority.
Another one of my classmates posted this Geico ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJrgcmqbuhQ
She then went on to say that it represented an appeal to emotionalism, because the ad was intended to make people think of prejudices, and become angry. Of course, I refuted that, and gave her examples of appeals to emotions by posting other ads that better represented the fallacy. She is now in super defense mode, so I met her half way and said that that, if anything, the ad is an appeal to humor, which technically causes an emotion. I still respectfully disagree with her that the intention of the ad is to make people think of prejudice. The pig actually responds to the officer pretty logically. If I saw a pig driving a car, I would probably call the police myself.
So far, I haven't seen one submission that correctly ascribed a logical fallacy to the advertisement. I am befuddled. Are they really that hard to grasp? One person demonstrated throughout his post that he has no understanding whatsoever of what the word 'skepticism' means.
Direct quote: "I don't find much skepticism with these products but not much truth behind them."
Wha??
Now mind you, I've put off this class for more than a year, because I heard atrocious things about it, so it is a class with many freshmen and sophomore students, but it's still frustrating. I don't even know how to respond without sounding bitchy. lol I feel like Richard Dawkins at a fucking creationist physician convention.
In a classroom setting, how would you respond to idiocy? I have gotten into some trouble before in these types of classes, and although the rubric for this assignment specifically states that we are to point out flaws if we find them as a part of our discussion participation, I wish I knew how to keep them all from getting so defensive.
There are some people in this class that I consider to be pretty intelligent folks, however, I am utterly disgusted by pretty much everyone's initial responses. I've only responded to three so far, and I was forced to tear them apart, because they were just... all wrong. I don't know if these people didn't read the material, or if they just don't get it, but none of them are ascribing the correct logical fallacies to the advertisement claims. One person suggested that, because an ad for toothpaste claimed that it was recommended by the American Dental Association, it was a fucking appeal to popularity. (Face Palm) They then went on to describe an appeal to popularity, completely missing that the claim of the toothpaste ad was an appeal to authority.
Another one of my classmates posted this Geico ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJrgcmqbuhQ
She then went on to say that it represented an appeal to emotionalism, because the ad was intended to make people think of prejudices, and become angry. Of course, I refuted that, and gave her examples of appeals to emotions by posting other ads that better represented the fallacy. She is now in super defense mode, so I met her half way and said that that, if anything, the ad is an appeal to humor, which technically causes an emotion. I still respectfully disagree with her that the intention of the ad is to make people think of prejudice. The pig actually responds to the officer pretty logically. If I saw a pig driving a car, I would probably call the police myself.
So far, I haven't seen one submission that correctly ascribed a logical fallacy to the advertisement. I am befuddled. Are they really that hard to grasp? One person demonstrated throughout his post that he has no understanding whatsoever of what the word 'skepticism' means.
Direct quote: "I don't find much skepticism with these products but not much truth behind them."
Wha??
Now mind you, I've put off this class for more than a year, because I heard atrocious things about it, so it is a class with many freshmen and sophomore students, but it's still frustrating. I don't even know how to respond without sounding bitchy. lol I feel like Richard Dawkins at a fucking creationist physician convention.
In a classroom setting, how would you respond to idiocy? I have gotten into some trouble before in these types of classes, and although the rubric for this assignment specifically states that we are to point out flaws if we find them as a part of our discussion participation, I wish I knew how to keep them all from getting so defensive.
42