Social Media in the Delivery Room

Background: The birthing process have change dramatically within the years. It went from being surrounded by love ones, during the process. Now it is just you in a room full of strangers. Author Tina Cassidy wrote an article about the use of social media in the birthing room. This article has been in the news lately, after a Maryland hospital ban the use of photography. The part of this article that I am interested in are the reasons the author give for allowing social media.

Article: Social Media in Delivery Room

Premises/Conclusion

Premises (1) - "Most people have this knee-jerk reaction to social media during birth. “It’s ‘ick,’ keep it to yourself.” But for those on the receiving end of the texts and emailed pictures — grandparents, friends, neighbors — they want to know the details of your birth, how do you feel, who does the baby look like, etc. “It’s such an important time for mothers to connect,” Tina said."

Premises (2) - "Keep in mind, it’s only in the last 100 years or so that women have been giving birth in hospitals, surrounded by strangers. Previously, birth was a big social affair and women were surrounded by other women, their mothers, sisters, family. Now, your spouse might be there, and maybe a hired doula. Otherwise it’s hospital staff and medical students. “It’s a long time to be isolated and not communicate,” Tina says. Social media fills that gap: you can once again be surrounded by your people."

Premises (3) - "As far as birth goes, we are all products of our culture and history (that’s the subject of her last book Birth: The Surprising History of How We Are Born). Birth customs and practices are largely generational — just remember how Betty Draper gave birth to her third child on Mad Men. (If you didn’t see it, think enema, shaved pubic-hair and a hefty dose of Demerol). Or, as Tina points out: “My grandmother wasn’t even conscious for the birth of her kids — this [social media phenomenon] brings consciousness to a whole new level to be able to text during your C-section.”"

Conclusion - "Author and local birth expert Tina Cassidy wrote a compelling piece in New York Magazine this week about the use of social media during childbirth."

Lets formalize the argument:

1. Social media in the birthing room allow friends and family to witness the miracle of childbirth and it will capture those special moments.
   
2. It allow the mother to fill more comfortable, because at the hospital there are nothing but strangers around. Social media will fill that gap, because it allow them to stay in contact with their family.
   

Therefore,

3. Social Media will help fill the void of love ones not being around, and it can help us capture memories that can never be replace.


The author of this article, Rachel Zimmerman, provides no true facts about why it is helpful for women to be allow to use social media. This article contain Appeal to Pity and Tradition. Appeal to Pity is seen when she says, "But for those on the receiving end of the texts and emailed pictures — grandparents, friends, neighbors — they want to know the details of your birth, how do you feel, who does the baby look like, etc. “It’s such an important time for mothers to connect,” Tina said." It makes the reader feel sorry for the mother that she is left all alone in hospital room. This argument also appeal to tradition when the author wrote, "Previously, birth was a big social affair and women were surrounded by other women, their mothers, sisters, family. Now, your spouse might be there, and maybe a hired doula. Otherwise it’s hospital staff and medical students. “It’s a long time to be isolated and not communicate,” Tina says. Social media fills that gap: you can once again be surrounded by your people. “I have no scientific proof of this,” she says." Back in the old days during women childbirth they were surrounded by their loved ones, so why in this time and ages women cannot connect with their loved ones. It also states that she has no real solid facts.

Thomas Reuters: Brain Analysis Can Predict Psychosis

Background: The following discussion concerns a new method of treatment that can predict the condition of psychotic patients. According to the author, Thomas Reuters, scientists from King's College London's Institute of Psychiatry and University College London's computer science department found that using computer algorithms to analyze MRI brain scans can predict a patient’s outcome. The part of the discussion I am interested in occurs near the end of the article when the sample is conducted and the researchers relay the results.


Article:http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/07/brain-analysis-can-help-predict-psychosis/#ixzz1eDmMaNMM

Analysis: Thomas Reuters claims that professionals have proven that MRI scans can predict psychosis; however, his statements contradict the scientists results from a small sample conducted. Approximately 24 million people worldwide show symptoms of psychosis. The sample contained 100 people experiencing their first psychotic episode in the experimental group, and the control group contained 91 healthy patients. Scientist correctly predicted seven out of the ten patients that were said to developed continuous psychosis.

Premise/Conclusion

Premise (1) - "Dazzan's team worked with 100 patients and took MRI brain scans when they came into health clinics with their first psychotic episode. The researchers scanned also the brains of 91 healthy people as a control group."

Premise (2)- "The patients were followed up around six years later and put into groups of those who had developed either continuous, episodic or intermediate psychosis, depending on whether their symptoms continued or faded away during this time."

Premise (3)- "The team then analyzed in detail the scans from 28 people who had continuous psychosis, 28 patients with an episodic course, and 28 healthy controls and used the data gained to "train" computer software based on pattern recognition to enable it to distinguish between different illness severities."

Premise (4)- "When the resulting algorithm was used on scans of patients who had had a first psychotic episode, it was able to pick out those who had gone on to develop continuous psychosis and those who went on to develop a more benign, episodic psychosis in seven out of 10 cases, the researchers said."

Conclusion- "MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) brain scans can predict a patient's outcome."

Let's formalize the argument:

(1) Dazzan's team tested 100 patients who experienced their first psychotic episode and 91 healthy patients, they could determine which patient would show continuous symptoms.

(2) The test matched up with seven out of the ten patients that were said to have continuous symptoms.

Therefore,

(3) MRI brain scans can predict the outcome of psychotic patients.

I think that there are a number ways analyze the fallacy committed here. Notice that the author conclusion contradicts the statements from the professionals that actually conducted the research. The author says," Brain analysis can predict psychosis", which implies that there is an accurate medical procedure to do so. The researchers say, "Although we have some way to go to improve the accuracy of these test and validate the results on independent large sample, we have shown that in principle to use brain scans to identify...patients who are likely to go on to have a continuous psychotic illness and those who will likely develop a less severe form." Professionals still need to do some testing on this method of treatment, so when the author said, “brain analysis can predict psychosis”, the word "can" sways the readers to assume that there are no flaws and further testing is needed.

This is a case of an argument from hasty generalization fallacy. There are approximately 24 million people worldwide living with psychotic symptoms. A sample of 200 people could not possibly show reliable results for such a large population of patients. Next, the testing did not distinguish the difference between types of psychotic patients that display symptoms in their testing, whether the symptoms were natural or drug induced. Also, from the title of the article the author concludes that scientist can predict psychosis, but the results showed they were only able to predict seven out of ten patients would remain with the psychotic symptoms after a period of six years, which is not guaranteed but probable results.
draft
11/19/11
by Eugene Smith
Delete

'Yes, I don't know why I didn't think of it, but I think that would help immensely.'

Background:
This title was a statement that was made by presidential candidate Gary Johnson upon his views of marijuana with an interview with Huffington Post. The article that was brought to my attention, was written by Lucia Graves who does most of her articles over political based matters for the Huffington Post. It is clear by this post that Gary Johnson backs up the idea of the legalization of marijuana just about 100%. He discusses many points that are valid for legalizing marijuana such as the amount of people doing time behind bars for it, the percent of people that are for legalizing marijuana, and his own experiences with the substance.

Analysis:
Lucia Graves does a good job covering the details of Johnson’s ideas agreeing for legalization in this article.

Basically... this post follows like this in a premises and conclusion form:
P1: About 50% of the population agrees with the legalization of marijuana.
P2: Legalizing Marijuana would save billions in tax revenue.
P3: Marijuana helped Johnson and should be used in finding relief for many.
C: Marijuana should be legalized.

It is stated that he thinks its only a matter of time until it is legalized:

"Clearly it is when, not if," he said of legalizing cannabis. "When 50 percent of the population says to the other 50 percent, 'You belong behind bars for your actions,' that's not good law, that is just not good law at all."

Lucia covers this with information made from a poll which states:

“The past two decades alone have seen a marked shift in public opinion on the issue, according to the annual poll conducted Oct. 6-9. When respondents were asked in 1970 if the drug should be made legal, only 12 percent agreed. That number rose to 28 percent by the late 1970s, dipped slightly lower in the 1980s, and rose to 36 percent in 2006. Support has spiked in the past five years, with 40 percent of respondents favoring legalization in 2009 before numbers jumped another 10 percent this year.”

It shows here that more and more people as the years went by, basically have grown into the idea of marijuana. But how accurate is this really? Was this nationwide? If i asked my mother and father, will they tell me that they took this poll also? Not only by these statements was numbers and statistics used, but by this comment also:

“Legalizing marijuana would save roughly $8.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition, according to research by Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron. He also calculated that the legalization of marijuana would generate approximately $8.7 billion in tax revenue.”

This statement right above shows information that can be better used for an argument than the poll given above it. I'm sure it is much more logical and easy to generate an approximate amount of money for tax revenue than it is possible to get a nationwide poll on the percentage of people who thinks marijuana should be legalized. But on another note, there was one thing that fascinated me the most in this article. Johnson used his own story of his time spent after a paragliding accident he was in, in 2005 as stated here:

"I was a pile of bones. I was told to lay on the floor, and to stay laying down on the floor for six weeks, to eat off of the floor. I could get up and go to the bathroom. In that state somebody came by and said, 'Gary? Would marijuana help do you think?' And my response was immediately, 'Yes, I don't know why I didn't think of it, but I think that would help immensely.' And it did."

I must say Gary, this story is quite touching. Its a real attention grabber for an audience to see that this presidential candidate of ours, had an encounter with marijuana. But its not like he had any other choice, it worked out for him as sure as he is that it could help others also:

"Whatever ails a person, that they should find relief in marijuana and not Percocet, I would think should be a situation of rejoice," Johnson said, referring to the Centers for Disease Control study.


With Johnson’s story here, we can say that his story itself is a fallacy which appeals to pity. Johnson gets us locked into his story, gets us emotional and teary-eyed by evoking this pity. Although he brings about this fallacy, another one was also brought about in this article. It would have to be the area where Lucia and Johnson cover that half of the population agrees with the legalization. It shows a case of fallacy that appeals to the people (Ad Populum). They show that people have favorable emotions towards the legalization towards marijuana, in place of actual evidence. Even though there was a poll here with all the data and statistics give, it would still not be ration to accept the claim just because most people approve of it. Though there was one good evidence which applied towards the tax revenue collecting about 9 billion dollars, these two fallacies shadowed that statement. I am diagnosing this argument as Dead on Arrival.

Analysis: I think that O’ Rielly does a wonderful job of Questioning Donald Trump in this particular interview. In my opinion he does a very thorough job of seeking Trump’s true interest and importance of this issue. The part of this argument that I would like to focus on occurs at the time of 0:19-1:30. Trump tries to discredit birth announcements,

From the Transcript:
Bill O’Reilly: we very early on did an investigation about Barack Obama’s birth certificate and factor found out that there were two announcements the week he was born. In both Honolulu newspapers saying that he was born. Okay. That is impossible to make happen if he had not been born in the hospital. So I just put the issue to bed. I said he was born in Honolulu the two newspaper documented it.
{more illustration as to why O’Rielly dismissed the issue}
Trump: Bill I grew up with wall street geniuses what they do in terms of fraud and how they change documents and I’ll tell you something if you notice those dates were three days later and here’s what I ask people
Trump: Who puts birth announcements in the newspaper?..... Here are two poor people a man and a woman with no money to have a baby… there’s announcements in the newspaper?
O’Rielly: The grandparents did it.
Trump: Nelson Rockefeller doesn’t put announcements in the newspaper.
O’Rielly: Sure there are Birth annocements all the time
Trump: I’ve never seen one
O’Rielly: Really
Trump: No
O’Rielly: They’re common

Summary; Bill O’Rielly conducted an early investigation finding supporting evidence that Barack Obama had to have been born in the United States. The two newspaper announcements published in the newspaper just three days after his birth caused O’Rielly to dismiss the notion that he may not have been born in the U.S: thus stating that it would have been impossible for him to have been born anywhere other than in the United States. Trump automatically tries to discredit the announcements. Trump does not produce hard evidence that President Barack Obama is not a citizen. He only makes accusations as to why there is a serious doubt for him that the President is a citizen but never specifically says Barack Obama was not born in the United States.
Formalizing the argument:
P1. Barack’s parents were poor and couldn’t put their announcements in the news papter.
P2. His grandparents did it, but Nelson Rockefeller didn’t put announcements in the news paper.
P3. I never seen a birth announcement
P4 President Barack Obama’s birth announcements are invalid
C. So therefore all birth announcements are invalid including President Barack Obama’s.

For the portion of the argument I chose I wanted to pinpoint the fact that Trump wants to discredit the birth announcements in both Honolulu newspapers because he claims that Barack Obama’s parents could not have put his birth announcements in the paper; Reason being because they were poor and that his grandparents couldn’t have had a reason to put them in the paper comparing them to Nelson Rockefeller (stating that he never put birth announcements in the newspaper). I feel that he was insinuating that because that people with money could not have put them in there either. Finally I also thought that when he was saying he has never seen a birth announcement so they don’t exist and therefore President Barack Obama’s birth announcements could not have been true.
This is a case of a Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Donald Trump is drawing a general conclusion about not only President Barack Obama’s birth announcements but all birth announcements. His conclusion says that Barack Obamas birth announcements are not valid and for that matter no birth announcements don’t exist because he has never seen one (and he does not understand why people put them in the newspaper).>

Beyerstein: Fat as Class War in Arizona

Background:

A blog post by Lindsay Beyerstein was submitted to a website called bigthink.com which presented an opposing side of Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer's decision to propose charging obese medicaid patients a $50 tax fee a year if they don't follow a doctor-supervised plan to slim down. Those who are obese would need to work with a primary-care physician to develop a plan to help them lose weight and also improve their health. The "fat fee" would also apply to smokers and diabetics. Arizona's officials believe that the fee would give people a reason to get healthy, and that it's a crucial part of a plan to save $500 million a year in Medicaid spending. Also if ratified, the money that is saved would revive coverage of organ transplants.Others, like Lindsay Beyerstein,who opposes the tax says the new tax would punish patients for conditions they can't always control.

Analysis:

Throughout this article, Lindsay Beyerstein asserts that the proposal of the “fat tax” on overweight medicaid patients is wrong because they can't afford it. Here I will formalize Lindsay Beyerstein's entire argument in premise-conclusion form.

Premise 1: Demanding that poor people slim down and charging them extra if they don't would be a

cruel and regressive tax.The goal isn't really to save money, or improve public health. The goal is to make government assistance as degrading as possible.

Premise 2:A diet-or-pay scheme is not sound public health policy. Diets, even medically supervised diets, don't reliably produce permanent weight loss. Furthermore, weight fluctuations may be even more dangerous than being steadily overweight.

Premise 3:Poverty is an independent risk factor for obesity. High-nutrient, low-calorie foods like fruits, vegetables, and lean meats cost a lot more than low-nutrient, low-calorie staples rich in flour, sugar, and fats.

Premise 4: Proposing that the poorest of the poor be made to pay even more because they can't afford to be thin is irrational. It costs a lot more than $50 to join gyms and keep up with diets.

Conclusion: Taxing the poor by being overweight is an unfair proposal that should not be ratified.

Lindsay Beyerstein presents factual claims supporting the reasons why many people are overweight. She mentions low nutrient diets that cost less than high-nutrient diets and also how medically supervised diets don't reliably produce permanent weight loss. Also given the fact that medicaid is a health care program for low-income people, I could understand why Lindsay centered her argument around the poor not being able to afford many of the things that may help one obtain weight loss. Although Beyerstein presented feasible points, the questioning of relevance in correspondence to Governor Brewer's proposal entails conflict.

In the first argument, which is the proposal of Governor Brewer to charge a $50 tax on overweight medicaid patients is merely to save money and to also raise money to revive coverage for organ donors. However Lindsay Beyerstein's argument suggests other wise. As you can infer by evaluating each premise made by Lindsay Beyerstein there is no relevance in regards of what Governor Brewer intended for this proposal to produce. Lindsay misinterprets Governor Brewer's request by suggesting that “ the goal isn't really to save money, or improve public health. The goal is to make government assistance as degrading as possible.” She also points out that Governor Brewer's proposal is demanding that the poorest of the poor to pay even more because they can't afford to be thin.

Quran-Burning Pastor Deflects Blame of Protests and Killings in Afghanistan

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/terry-jones-abc-news-bill-weir-transcript/story?id=13277067&page=2

Background:
In July 2010, Terry Jones, pastor of a church in Gainesville, Florida declared he would burn 200 Qurans on the 2010 anniversary of the devastating events on September 11. His declaration received much media attention, resulting in international outrage and pleas from world leaders to cancel the event. In early September 2010, He canceled the burning and promised to never burn a Quran. On March 20, 2011 Pastor Jones held a "trial of the Quran" in his church. Pastor Jones and jurors found the Quran to be “guilty” of “crimes against humanity”. Then the Quran was burnt in Jones' church. On April 1,2011, upon hearing the news, protesters in the northern Afghanistan, attacked the United Nations Assistance Mission, killing at least 30 people, including at least seven U.N. workers and injuring at least 150 people. Jones disclaimed any responsibility for the killings which resulted in 5 days of protests.

The following is an excerpt from a transcript from ABC News' Bill Weir's interview with Pastor Terry Jones on Jones' response to the United Nations saying their staffers were killed in Afghanistan during a violent protest over his Koran burning.

Weir: When you got news of today's deadly riots there in Afghanistan, what was the first thought that went through your head?

Jones: Yeah, yeah of course we were very saddened and devastated by that. It is of course a terrible thing anytime anyone is killed. Anytime someone's life is cut short through murder or even accident. I think it definitely does prove that there is a radical element of Islam. I believe we need to take this evidence, we need to take this action and those people and those countries should be held accountable. I believe the U.S. needs to stand up. I believe the UN needs to stand up to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Muslim-dominated countries. They have been persecuting, killing Christians for generations.

Jones: I believe that it's time that we stand up and force them, encourage them to adapt human rights into their laws, into their constitution and that these types of actions should not be allowed.

Argument

In this portion of the interview Pastor Jones presents two arguments. One that concludes the fact that there is a radical element of Islam proven by the riots and killings of U.N. employees in Afghanistan.

P: U.N. employees in Afghanistan were killed during protests over Pastor Jones’ burning the Quran.

C: There is a radical element of Islam.

The other states:

P1: There is a radical element of Islam.

P2: They [Muslims] have been persecuting, killing Christians for generations.

C: The U.S. and the U.N. need to stand up to Muslim-dominated countries and force/encourage them to adapt human rights into their laws/constitution. These types of actions should not be allowed and those countries should be held accountable.

C2: Jones and his church put the Quran on trial then burnt it to bring awareness of this radical element of Islam. (Jones seems to be providing evidence for this conclusion throughout the interview, but he never directly states it wholly.)

Ambiguity

First, I believe we should try to identify what Pastor Jones means when he states that there is a "radical element of Islam". Several times during this interview, Jones uses the term "radical Islam" or says things like wanting to, " make an awareness of the radical element of Islam." The end of this interview sheds more light on Jones' definition of this ambiguous term.

Weir: But here's the ironic part to your argument there [cross talk]. The timing of this comes at a time of unprecedented awakening across the Arab world--people are motivated by what you are talking about, democracy, freedom of speech, taking to the streets--not a religious movement, purely a democratic, populist movement, but now this incident--and the headlines will be that this is a result of your actions--may help derail that very thing that you're asking for. Doesn't that strike you as ironic timing?

Jones: I don't think it will do that. As I said, I believe that it is time to raise that awareness. it is time that moderate Muslims who desire to have freedom of speech, freedom of religion--that is truly going on in those countries. It is not an opportunity for the Muslim brother hood or some other radical group to take over. And we think that even moderate Muslims could stand up and they could speak out against Jihad, against Sharia, against the radical element of Islam.

From the end of this interview, we see that Jones himself defines the term "radical element of Islam" or "radical Islam" as two different things:

1) radical Muslim groups

2) radical elements of the religion, Islam, itself (laws and beliefs)

In the beginning of his ending response when he talks about Moderate Muslims, Jones identifies this term as Muslim radical groups who are followers of Islam. However when Jones mentions Jihad and Sharia at the end of his response, he implicates that he defines this term as literally there being a radical element of the religion, Islam, itself. Jihad and Sharia Law are both Islamic terms found in the Quran and they also have differing interpretations in meaning or are followed differently by all Muslims.

Symptoms
(Analysis of Fallacies)

Now, we are going to analyze Jones' second argument which consists of several fallacies. First, he commits the fallacy of ambiguity, equivocation. Above we already established that Jones' presents two different interpretations of the term "radical element of Islam". In the premises of Jones' argument, he presents evidence in support of the first meaning of the term "radical element of Islam". However in his conclusion, he mainly focuses on the second interpretation of the ambiguous term which causes his argument to be invalid and fallacious.

Second, he commits the fallacy of weak induction, hasty generalization. Jones provides evidence in both arguments that there are radical Muslim groups and countries that have persecuted and killed Christians; however, he implies in his conclusion that all Muslim-dominated countries have done these things and should be held accountable.

Lastly, he commits the fallacy of presumption, begging the question. Jones tries to validate his conclusion by providing evidence that relates to the conclusion but it does not entirely and logically supply support for the conclusion. His argument begs the question "Does the fact that some radical Muslim groups and Muslim-dominated countries have persecuted and killed Christians for generations gives the U.N. and U.S. the right to hold all Muslim-dominated countries accountable?" Over 1.5 billion people are followers of Islam and approximately fifty countries are predominantly Muslim.

Diagnosis

Pastor Terry Jones' arguments are plagued with several fallacies in this interview. He commits the more obvious fallacy of hasty generalization and fallacy of ambiguity (equivocation). In this case, he also commits the more subtle fallacy of presumption (begging the question). So due to these symptoms, this argument is in Critical Condition.