CHAPTER 2 Myths and Facts: Using Critical Thinking and Research The Source of Myths: Fallacies of Thinking (pp. 41-49) The study of society and social problems is a tricky business. Human beings
as individuals, as collectivities, in groups, or in organizations are elusive
subjects for serious study. One way we can appreciate the elusiveness is to
examine ourselves as "mythmakers" who are led astray by various fallacies of
thinking. These fallacies cloud rather than clarify key issues with which students
of social problems must deal. We should be alert to at least nine types of fallacies:
(1) dramatic instance, (2) retrospective determinism, (3) misplaced concreteness,
(4) personal attack, (5) appeal to prejudice, (6) circular reasoning, (7) authority,
(8) composition, and (9) non sequitur. The fallacy of dramatic instance
refers to the tendency to overgeneralize; to use one, two, or three cases to
support an entire argument. The fallacy of retrospective determinism
is the argument that things could not have worked out any other way than the
way they did. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness refers to making
what is abstract into something concrete (reification). The fallacy of personal
attack involves diverting attention from the issue and focusing it on the
personality (ad hominem). The fallacy of appeal to prejudice involves
using popular prejudices or passions to convince others of the correctness of
one's position. The fallacy of circular reasoning refers to using conclusions
to support the assumptions that were necessary to make the conclusions. The
fallacy of authority involves an illegitimate appeal to authority. The
fallacy of composition involves arguing that what is true of the part
is also true of the whole. Non sequitur means "it does not follow," and
the fallacy of non sequitur involves using statistics in a misleading fashion:
as though the data speak for themselves. The Source of Facts: Social Research (pp. 50-61) If we are to separate fact from myth, we must develop valid and reliable techniques
of social research. Social scientists are still learning how to achieve higher
levels of validity and reliability. If we are to achieve valid understanding
about social problems, we must employ valid methodology. For instance, when
speaking of a specific research instrument, we ask whether it measures what
it is supposed to measure (for example, prejudice). That is a question of validity.
Or we may inquire about the instrument's consistency. Do we obtain the same
results with repeat instrument application? That is a question of reliability.
Of course, if there has been a real change, say in prejudice, a reliable measure
would accurately reflect the degree of attitude change. There are many ways of conducting effective social research, but we will look
at just four. We selected these for their having yielded important information
about social problems: (1) survey research, (2) statistical analysis of official
records, (3) experiments, and (4) participant observation. The author provides relevant examples of these research methods: Diana Russell's
investigation of wife rape in San Francisco (survey); Ruth Horowitz's study
of inner city, Chicano gangs (participant observation); Pamela Jackson's study
of city size, minority population, and the commitment to policing (statistical
analysis of official records); and Johnson, Jackson, and Gatto's analysis of
the effects of exposure to rap music (experiment). |
2002 McGraw-Hill Higher Education