Category: Reading and Viewing Responces

The filibuster has been defended as a great tradition of the US Senate and a great protection of the right of political minorities against political majorities.  But, like any tool or tactic, it can be used for good or ill.  Do you think that the filibuster is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing?  Why?  Would you recommend any changes to the procedure?  Consider the article “Filibusters and Cloture in the US Senate” for an account of filibuster procedures and their history in the US Senate if you are at a loss for details.

By now you are well aware of how easy it is to “cherry pick” evidence.  In the article you just read, Mike D’Angelo makes the case that the jurors in 12 Angry Men made a big mistake in their assessment of the evidence: while there was room for reasonable doubt about any of the pieces of evidence taken individually, their combined weight really leaves no room for doubt.  Do you agree with his assessment?  Why or why not?

You have learned a lot about the heuristics, biases, and cognitive shortcuts that can lead any of us to wrong conclusions.  And you have now watched a substantial portion of Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations, presenting evidence of weapon of mass destruction in Iraq prior to the Iraq War.  As we know, there turned out not to be any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Which of the heuristics, biases, and cognitive shortcuts you have learned about might have lead Powell and others to believe so strongly that the weapons were there?

Post a link to a webpage that you think contain a good example of an argument about one of the following types of proposition: fact, value, policy, definition, or interpretation.  Include a brief explanation of how you see the example working and of where it occurs on the page.  Complete this by the night before class.

Post a link to a web page that you think represents of good example of one of the following: deductive argument, inductive argument, argument by analogy, an enthymeme.  Include a brief explanation of how you see the example working and of where it occurs on the page.  Complete this by the night before class.

Do you agree with the creators of this website that DHMO should be banned?  Why or why not?  Do the arguments presented by the site conform to the highest standards of rationality?  What could be done to improve the rationality of the arguments?

In the essay you have just read, George Orwell says that the “slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts” and admonishes us not to practice the kind of writing that “consists in gumming together long strips of words that have already been set in order by someone else.”  On the other hand, some language is very carefully crafted to achieve a political end, for instance Frank Luntz’s well-honed phrases: “climate change” and “death tax.” Share a link to a text that you think exemplifies either linguistic “slovenliness” or an adroitly-crafted phrase in the style of Luntz, then discuss whether or not the example you cite promotes deliberation.

Which is the most important guarantee of effective deliberation: wise leadership, sound procedures, expert knowledge, or an informed public?  Contribute information, experiences or reflections in support of the positions on this question that you think would be taken by Aristotle, Madison, Lippmann, or Dewey.