surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
Well to augment the analogy is a physician talking about the effect of cocaine, if the extent of their knowledge of cocaine specifically is "OOOO COCAINE IS BAD FOR YOU, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD". To extend the analogy the doc is drawing:
drugs are to cocaine
as
video games are to Mass Effect
drugs are to cocaine
as
video games are to Mass Effect
Stats etc don't matter in this case, since you could use those stats for just about anything you want. We'll always have bad scientists on the games debate, the media just tends to select those more often than the few good ones :(
"I do think she can offer an opinion about the effects of a game she hasn't played"
Come on, we're gamers on the internet, it's not that uncommon for us to have an opinion on a console or game we don't own or play.
The problem with Cooper probably was that someone lied or misinformed her, she had a mental idea of what Mass Effect was according to what she was told and she gave an opinion based on that.
Anyway, she's still an idiot for not checking her sources.
Come on, we're gamers on the internet, it's not that uncommon for us to have an opinion on a console or game we don't own or play.
The problem with Cooper probably was that someone lied or misinformed her, she had a mental idea of what Mass Effect was according to what she was told and she gave an opinion based on that.
Anyway, she's still an idiot for not checking her sources.
You can always offer an opinion about things you haven't personally experienced. But that opinion may well be wrong if it's based on poor sources and/or an error-prone bias. So it's best to have good sources and minimize your cognitive bias.
In the case of FOX News, Cooper Lawrence had a strong bias and unreliable sources. This is the type of decision-making environment that would, I don't know, get a President into trouble.
As to your Professor, ask him/her to analyze his/her analogy for classical logical fallacies. I only found two, but maybe your professor's a better logician than I. Ask if the doctor's opinion on the effects of cocaine is in some way different from a reader's opinion on the contents of a book he's never heard of before.
Of course it is. The doctor is deriving the basis for her opinion from observed and documented behaviors. The reader is deriving his opinion of the book by creating knowledge solely from within himself. Ask your psychology professor if he/she would prefer visiting a physician who employs an empirical basis for medical treatment, or one who uses intuition.
In the case of FOX News, Cooper Lawrence had a strong bias and unreliable sources. This is the type of decision-making environment that would, I don't know, get a President into trouble.
As to your Professor, ask him/her to analyze his/her analogy for classical logical fallacies. I only found two, but maybe your professor's a better logician than I. Ask if the doctor's opinion on the effects of cocaine is in some way different from a reader's opinion on the contents of a book he's never heard of before.
Of course it is. The doctor is deriving the basis for her opinion from observed and documented behaviors. The reader is deriving his opinion of the book by creating knowledge solely from within himself. Ask your psychology professor if he/she would prefer visiting a physician who employs an empirical basis for medical treatment, or one who uses intuition.
Not to be too hard on your professor, he/she almost got it right. I wouldn't object if the sentence read:
I do think she can offer an opinion about the effects of a game she hasn't played, provided she is objectively correct about the content of the game, in the same way a physician can offer an opinion about the effects of cocaine without personally using cocaine herself.
If it is the game's content that harms young minds, then ignorance of the content is akin to a doctor who has never read about the effects of cocaine, but does know about LSD. One can't assume that all games/controlled substances have similar effects, regardless of content.
I do think she can offer an opinion about the effects of a game she hasn't played, provided she is objectively correct about the content of the game, in the same way a physician can offer an opinion about the effects of cocaine without personally using cocaine herself.
If it is the game's content that harms young minds, then ignorance of the content is akin to a doctor who has never read about the effects of cocaine, but does know about LSD. One can't assume that all games/controlled substances have similar effects, regardless of content.
