[Air-L] smartphones/teens/hyperbole

Charles M. Ess c.m.ess at media.uio.no
Sat Aug 26 07:24:28 PDT 2017


Hi all,

While I also share some caution with the article, I also have 
reservations about how the the arguments offered both here and in 
Barry's post may go logically awry, especially when moral panics are 
invoked.
That is, I've seen two versions of these arguments offered up in the 
literature over the years, both of which are logically weak if not 
simply fallacious.
Perhaps no on here has either of these versions in mind, but just in 
case ...

Version 1:

(Premise 1) The introduction of contemporary technology X evoked 
concerns over loss of community.

(Premise 2) But the introduction of earlier technology Y also evoked 
concerns over loss of community.

Implicit assumption: but the earlier concerns are mistaken.

Conclusion by analogy: contemporary concerns are mistaken.

A primary logical problem here (i.e., beyond the problem of induction 
that is also in play) is that this is an analogical argument.
On the one hand, analogical arguments are the most common: but, on the 
other hand, they are also the most difficult to establish and assess. 
(Perhaps one of the reasons why analogical reasoning was dropped from 
the US SAT in 2005 or so?  Though contemporary political rhetoric 
doesn't suggest we're any more savvy about good analogies vs. 
questionable ones ...)
Is there really a strong analogy, for example, between each of the two 
technologies?  Are there not significant differences?  Those questions 
have to be addressed, rather than assuming the analogy is a good one. 
And if the analogy / analogies are weak - i.e., if the relevant 
differences outweigh the relevant similarities - then the conclusion is 
likewise weak or suspect.

Version 2:

Premise 1: If we introduce technology X, then concerns are expressed.

Premise 2: With careful analysis, we can show that _some_ of these 
concerns are moral panics - i.e., ultimately resting on grounds that 
should be irrelevant to careful ethical / social / political critique.

Conclusion: If concerns are expressed following the introduction of 
technology Y, then those concerns can be dismissed as moral panics.

What I hope is clear in this formulation is that Premise 2 does not 
support the conclusion: it is one thing to demonstrate that some set of 
concerns are the result of moral panics - but this is not the same thing 
as demonstrating all sets of concerns are moral panics.

(For the logicians: the fallacy of affirming the consequent is looming 
large here.)

Again, I don't know that anyone here would endorse or fall for either 
version of the argument. But again, I have seen these versions 
frequently in the literature and think it worthwhile reminding us that 
they are logically flawed.

On we go - and thanks all around.
- charles




On 26/08/17 15:59, Unger, Johann wrote:
> Most definitely - the article does make some reasonable (and reasoned points), but largely it is tapping into the usual moral panics around childhood, technology and particularly the intersection of the two.
> 
> On tracing things back through history - I used to use a set of quotes that showed how each generation complained about new technologies (bark, slates, quills, ball-point pens etc.) ruining the writing skills of a new generation of youths… until I found out the whole set was made up, as detailed in various blogs & articles:
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/21/students-bark/
> Still, no smoke without fire, right?
> 
> Best, Johnny.
> 
> Dr J W Unger
> Lecturer and Academic Director of Summer Programmes
> Department of Linguistics and English Language
> Lancaster University
> LA1 4YL
> 
> e-mail: j.unger at lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:j.unger at lancaster.ac.uk>
> tel: +44 1524 592591<tel:+44%201524%20592591>
> Follow me on Twitter @johnnyunger<http://twitter.com/#!/johnnyunger>
> 
> On 26 Aug 2017, 14:41 +0100, Barry Wellman <wellman at chass.utoronto.ca>, wrote:
> Re Galen Panger's comment on the list:
> 
> "I actually thought the article was hyperbolic, and I felt disappointed to
> see it get so much attention. I think there is reason for some concern,
> I would have liked to see the evidence presented less selectively
> and one-sidedly."
> 
> Heartedly agree. Keith Hampton and I have an article asserting that each
> generation thinks that community has been lost as compared to the previous
> one. Now, it is mobile phones. Two decades ago, it was the internet.
> 
> You can keep tracing this back to Tommy Jefferson in 1787.
> 
> And perhaps further.
> 
> 
> Barry Wellman
> 
> A vision is just a vision if it's only in your head
> Step by step, link by link, putting it together
> Streisand/Sondheim
> _______________________________________________________________________
> NetLab Network FRSC INSNA Founder
> http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman twitter: @barrywellman
> NETWORKED: The New Social Operating System Lee Rainie & Barry Wellman
> http://amzn.to/zXZg39
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
> 

-- 
Professor in Media Studies
Department of Media and Communication
University of Oslo
<http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/people/aca/charlees/index.html>

Editor, The Journal of Media Innovations
<https://www.journals.uio.no/index.php/TJMI/>

Postboks 1093
Blindern 0317
Oslo, Norway
c.m.ess at media.uio.no



More information about the Air-L mailing list