# data[].attributes.body
Reese Jenkins and Afrah Khan

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #1 Pseudoscience: Use of Scientific-sounding language that is meaningless.

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #1 Pseudoscience: Use of Scientific-sounding language that is meaningless.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

Pseudoscience’s Use of scientific-sounding language that is meaningless refers to using advanced vocabulary to influence someone into believing what is being said even if it is not correct to avoid skepticism.

Connection:

A connection can be made when you are having a normal conversation with someone but they start talking about some fact using an advanced word that does not correlate with the subject and does not make sense but they use it because it makes them seem smart. The person they are talking to may not know that the word does not connect to the topic and after listening they share with another person what they have heard creating a chain reaction of false information spreading around not knowing that the advanced word has no meaning or connection to the subject.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 Pseudoscience: Results can't be reproduced or verified

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 Pseudoscience: Results can't be reproduced or verified

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

Pseudoscience’s Results can't be reproduced or verified refers to someone making a claim that does not have any proof or scientific evidence that can be recorded only believing what a person is claiming by their word.

Connection: DOING TRICK ON SKATE BOARD

When skate boarding you could be practicing a trick and you finally got the landing but no one was around to see it be done so when telling your friends they do not believe you since there is no evidence that you did it and when trying it again you mess up. You cannot demonstrate the validity of what happened making the people think that you never did it distorting the view of truth.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 Pseudoscience: Does not progress

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 Pseudoscience: Does not progress

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

Pseudoscience does not progress, referring to a claim that is not considered followed through. Some faulty error or lack of knowledge within the claim may stop the follow-through.

Connection:

When reporting on a subject, you have to do research. For instance, in this class, we have to follow the design process, define our claim, recognize bias, evaluate the source, evaluate the evidence, and have a summary conclusion. If one of these steps is not carried through or if they are done not thoroughly, the research can lack the knowledge needed to be able to fully understand the users needs and it will be difficult to carry through and have the best research done.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Red Flag, All Natural refers to packaging claiming that it has All Natural sources but not explaining what these Natural sources may be and what value they hold, making it very vague to the person buying or consuming the product.

Connection:

Nesquik is a brand that produces chocolate milk. On the packaging, it is said that it is made from "all natural" ingredients, but it does not specify how healthy these ingredients are, only that they have to be good for you since they are natural, but many natural things can be bad for your health. This statement is not a reputable source. When picking out some foods, it is important to look at the ingredients on the packaging to fully understand. It was also debunked that on the packaging that Nesquik is a great start to your day, but in reality, it has high sugar contents which is natural but not healthy especially for the audience that they are reaching, which is younger childern.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #5 Red Flag: Confusion of Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #5 Red Flag: Confusion of Correlation with Causation

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Red Flag, Confusion of Correlation with Causation refers to assuming that two things are connected and correlate with one another one must cause the other to occur which is false.

Connection:

When driving down a highway, you are going 20 km over the speed limit, you are following a white car, and you get pulled over. The next week you are doing the same thing, following a white car and get pulled over again; this happens for a third time. They consult a friend to do a group-think and they come to the result that when they are following a white car, it will lead them to be pulled over, so whenever they see another white car, they will turn off the next road to get away from them thinking the two are connected, but in reality, they are not, it is just the speed they are going.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

The Red Flag, Mystical Energy refers to believing that mysterious forces are to blame if something were to occur to that someone may think is unnatural.

Connection:

If an object falls in a old house or a door closes or you hear a weird noise many people may think that their house is haunted so they hire a spirit medium but they have say they have a lack of practice but will still charge them saying that their house is haunted so that the person has something to blame for these mysterious occurances but in reality it is just the wind and now they are down some money.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:

A Red Herring occurs when an individual presents deceptive information to divert attention from true warning signals.

Connection:

The term 'red herring (distraction) among red flags (real dangers)' describes situations where misleading information is intentionally shared to confuse the audience, while the actual warning signs are ignored. The article that goes along with the video “Red Herring – Misleading Argument Explained” highlights how these distractions can prevent viewers from recognizing valid concerns. To counter red herrings, one can use critical thinking, which involves carefully examining statements or information that are publicly available and considered important. A claim meant for thorough discussion can be broken down as follows:

1. Define claim – Determine if the statement addresses the main issue or diverts from it entirely.

2. Recognizing bias – Understand how personal interests or emotions may affect the argument.

3. Evaluate sources – Assess whether the images and information presented are credible and if the stories are accurately represented or manipulated.

4. Evaluate evidence – Investigate how the claim interprets evidence that may actually contradict it.

5. Summery conclusion – Avoid making a definitive decision due to a lack of thorough analysis or clear reasoning. When reasoning fails, misleading arguments can create false alarms that distract from the truth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Red Herring - Misleading Argument Explained - Christophe Garon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is a Red Herring? A red herring is a rhetorical device often used to divert attention from the main issue at hand. It is a logical fallacy that involves introducing irrelevant information or arguments in order to mislead or... Continue Reading →

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The act of employing power or control to stop information from being revealed or made public.

Connection: The image represents censorship, which is defined as the use of power to conceal information. In the center, a figure has their mouth covered by several hands of various colors, symbolizing the restriction of speech and expression. Words like 'authority,' 'orders,' 'norm,' 'doctrines,' and 'dogmas' surround the figure, highlighting the different forces that impose censorship through laws, societal expectations, or institutional regulations. The word 'CENSORSHIP' at the bottom emphasizes the concept of silencing individuals through control, illustrating how authority suppresses voices to prevent the sharing of information. This creates barriers to critical thinking by restricting access to a range of perspectives and ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The tendency to think that unseen intentional forces govern the world,

Connection: A connection between the tendency to think that invisible intentional forces govern the world is closely linked to the concept of Agenticity, In the article by Michael Shermer, he describes Agenticity as the tendency of humans to perceive purpose, intention, or agency in occurrences, even when they occur randomly or organically. This cognitive bias leads people to blame intricate or ambiguous occurrences on supernatural entities, conspiracies, or divine influences, frequently disregarding critical thinking and more logical explanations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Michael Shermer’s March 2014 ‘Skeptic’ column for Scientific American, he asks what the magnificence of the awe-inspiring universe has to do with God.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The human tendency to find meaningful patterns and connections in unrelated or meaningless information.

Connection: The image demonstrates Patternicity, the tendency of humans to find patterns in random data. In the picture the camouflage background has random color patches, yet the brain perceives a leopard shape. It can cause misunderstandings that require critical thinking and scientific method to resolve, like seeing faces in inanimate objects or considering anecdotes as solid evidence for beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
DEFINITION: Perception is the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses. While observation uses the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.

CONNECTION: In the image it shows how "perception” shows the processes involved in becoming conscious of people, objects, events, or relationships through their senses. “observation” is shown as the gathering of information by watching something and paying attention to it closely, which allows critical thinking to occur.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: simpler explanations or theories are generally preferred over more complex ones, as they are more likely to be true.

Connection: In the article Occam's Razor shows explanations that are usually more accurate because they have fewer assumptions. Complex theories can be debunked when they depend on unnecessary details that are hard to prove. A lack of practice in questioning these theories can lead to group-thinking, where everyone in a group accepts a complicated idea without challenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simplicity in the Philosophy of Science | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The view that simplicity is a virtue in scientific theories and that, other things being equal, simpler theories should be preferred to more complex ones has been widely advocated in the history of science and philosophy, and it remains widely held by modern scientists and philosophers of science. It often goes by the name of “Ockham’s Razor.” The claim is that simplicity ought to be one of the key criteria for evaluating and choosing between rival theories, alongside criteria such as consistency with the data and coherence with accepted background theories. Simplicity, in this sense, is often understood ontologically, in terms of how simple a theory represents nature as being—for example, a theory might be said to be simpler than another if it posits the existence of fewer entities, causes, or processes in nature in order to account for the empirical data. However, simplicity can also been understood in terms of various features of how theories go about explaining nature—for example, a theory might be said to be simpler than another if it contains fewer adjustable parameters, if it invokes fewer extraneous assumptions, or if it provides a more unified explanation of the data.