Two experiments were conducted to determine the relative impact of direct and indirect (ad hominem) attacks on science claims. Four hundred and thirty-nine college students (Experiment 1) and 199 adults (Experiment 2) read a series of science claims and indicated their attitudes towards those claims. Each claim was paired with one of the following: A) a direct attack upon the empirical basis of the science claim B) an ad hominem attack on the scientist who made the claim or C) both. Results indicate that ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims, and that allegations of conflict of interest may be just as influential as allegations of outright fraud.
Listeners were presented with sequences of tones that ascended in semitone intervals. On each trial a single target tone in the sequence was displaced in pitch, and listeners were required to indicate whether the target tone was higher or lower than its normal pitch. Task constraints, specifically target serial position uncertainty and the probabilistic relationship between time deviations and target tones, were varied in order to determine the impact of task constraints on temporal attending strategy. When listeners had no advance knowledge of the serial position of the target, and early and late targets provided information regarding target serial position, performance was better for early and late target trials than for on-time target trials (Experiment 1). When listeners had no advance knowledge of the serial position of the target, and early and late temporal deviations provided no information regarding target serial position, performance for late target trials was superior to that for early and on-time target trials (Experiment 2). Finally, when target serial position uncertainty was eliminated, performance was equivalent across all three levels of target timing (early, on time, late). The results indicate that performance profiles based on stimulus timing properties are affected by various task constraints as well as by stimulus properties.
In this paper, we consider the way that web documents seeking to persuade readers of certain science claims provide information about the sources of the arguments. Our quantitative analysis reveals that web documents in our sample include hundreds of examples in which the reader is provided information regarding the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of sources. The web documents also contain a large number of examples in which the reader is provided with information about how many individuals hold a particular belief. We discuss ad hominem, ad verecundiam, and ad populum arguments, and the way that the examples found in our sample of documents are related to these argumentation schemes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.