Template:AOTW Descriptions
From RationalWiki
Here are basic descriptions of the six characteristics in the "rating" section:
[edit] Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism (see article for details) is strict adherence to a set of "fundamental" beliefs. It can be used to describe a person, a group, or a movement. These fundamentals, be they scripture or pronouncements from a charismatic leader, are followed no matter how strong the evidence against them. Since these fundamentals are "truth", different groups of fundamentalists are inherently at odds with each other and with the community at large. This often leads to an exaggerated feeling of persecution.
An article too influenced by fundamentalism will find it's legitimacy weakened by reliance on ideology over fact. Hallmarks of fundamentalism include immutable "facts" about what is or isn't so, regardless of data; the article may assume that everyone must believe these facts to be considered morally good or to be allowed to have an opinion. Fundamentalist arguments often rely themes of "good versus evil", and arguments based on technicalities or semantics rather than facts and data. Quote mining, in which others' words are altered to conform to one's own beliefs, is a hallmark of fundamentalist writing.
[edit] Authoritarianism
Authoritarian arguments ignore fact in favor of personality. Writing that has authoritarian qualities discourages thought on the part of the reader and encourages obedience. Rather than using data to support an idea, authority figures are invoked and their ideas accepted without question. This is especially visible when societal problems are addressed. Rather than arguing from facts or morals, an authoritarian style will invoke the opinion of a leader as the best solution.
Propaganda is a common style associated with authoritarianism. If you feel you are being lectured to and called to action, especially against some sort of "enemy", you may be reading authoritarian literature.
[edit] Fear of "others"
Fear of "others" is a jingoistic approach to discussion. It sets up an "us vs. them" dichotomy, whether or not one truly exists. Implied in this style is that the writer is right, and the "other" is wrong---independent of facts.
This style includes racist, sexist, and nationalist writing, but it can be subtle. Traditionally positive traits such as pride can be subtly racist. Patriotism can cross over into jingoist nationalism.
Fear of the other interferes with rational discourse, as it devalues others' beliefs and dehumanizes those from the "out" group. Recognizing this writing style helps identify bias that can harm rational discourse. Look for writing that speaks derisively of others whether or not the facts support such a negative view. Also, watch for arguments that assume someone is wrong simply because they are from a different group.
[edit] Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy does not immediately invalidate an argument. To dismiss an argument for hypocrisy alone is a logical fallacy known as tu quoque. However, hypocrisy raises red flags. For example, when a politician wears the mantle of libertarianism and at the same time calls for government intrusion into private lives, their ideas deserve careful scrutiny---if the ideals are not even actively valued by the writer or speaker, the premises should be evaluated more closely.
Hypocrisy can poison an argument---hypocritical arguments require very close scrutiny.
[edit] Denial of reality
This is the bread and butter of fringe lunatics. Denialism is a refusal to acknowledge reality, evidence, and the scientific method. To evaluate an article for denialism, take a look at the argument being made and see if it is based on coherent logic and empirical evidence. If instead it is a collection of mined quotes, logical fallacies, and conspiracy theories, finding any valid arguments will be nearly impossible.
Denial of reality is sometimes manifested as a "reversal" of the scientific method - starting with a set of beliefs and attempting to make reality conform to them. Inconvenient facts are usually ignored. Non-falsifiable arguments are also characteristic. If the data is inconvenient, a denialist can always invoke a conspiracy theory or a Goddidit gambit.
[edit] Incoherence
The writing of cranks is often incoherent. It wanders aimlessly, follows tangents, and sometimes dissolves into "word salad". If you read an argument and don't understand it, the problem might not be you. Is the writing clear? Do the thoughts flow from one idea to the next? Is the writing filled with non sequiturs?
Content can suggest incoherence but so can presentation. Just as capital letters are the internet equivalent of shouting, nausea-inducing use of conflicting colors, blinking text, random capitalization, liberal sprinklings of consecutive exclamation marks, and horrid font choices may indicate shattered thought processes.
Since the ability to actually communicate one's ideas is the first step in rational discourse, the degree of incoherence embedded in much fringe writing is an important trait.
