Authoritative vs. Communal Acquisition of Knowledge

My history class last semester, The Ancient World (expert authority), prohibited the use of Wikipedia (communal acquisition of knowledge) for our research papers. Our professor and TAs suggested that Wikipedia was unreliable and riddled with errors regarding topics such as Athenian Democracy, the life of Julius Caesar, and so forth. However, most students including myself, found Wikipedia far more useful for these topics than other sources, not because Wikipedia was necessarily right, but because its phrasing and presentation were much easier to understand and follow than, say, a 1958 journal study on Greek myths and their contribution to democratic ideals. Yes, we ultimately used primary sources and journal articles as evidence in our papers, but to attain a basic understanding of the topic at hand, the majority of us first searched "Athenian Democracy" or "Julius Caesar" on Wikipedia for a broad, well structured group of information. After reading the Wikipedia article to understand the basics (which the website is almost always accurate about-- it is the minor details which are more likely to contain errors), we found ourselves better prepared to tackle the more complex primary sources and journal articles. Therefore, although ultimately we did not source Wikipedia for claims in our paper (or even the sources found at the bottom of Wikipedia articles), we used the website as a valuable stepping stone in our research.

I find communal acquisition of knowledge more useful, especially in the field of graphic design, which is a hobby of mine. Many graphic designers believe that the only way to get good at making images or designing websites is to take classes (expert authority) and read textbooks. While I have taken classes and used textbooks, which proved very effective at teaching concepts, I find the near infinite free knowledge regarding graphic design concepts (found in the form of Youtube videos made by professionals and amateurs alike, none of their credentials checked before publishing) far more interesting and useful. People online tend to use language that is easier to understand than that of the professionals. Furthermore, online videos (which are free) are far easier to access than expensive textbooks or classes. Due to the sheer number of amateur graphic designers, almost every concept you could ever think of is covered in a Youtube video, while this may not be the case in a time-limited class or page-limited book. 

Logical Fallacy - TSA Toddler Screening Article (CNN)

Original Article


The article is about how "A 2010 video of an airport screener patting down a 3-year-old boy in a wheelchair has become the latest Rorschach test of the public's attitude towards the TSA, pitting agency defenders against those who say the video shows the child being treated like a terrorist."


I found two logical fallacies in this article.


1. ""There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," [the father] said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police.""


This is a non sequitur, which is "distinguished by reasoning or evidence that is exceptionally irrelevant to the claim being made" (Writ 140 Course Book). The father suggests that society would not accept if an older man touched a young child in a McDonalds, which is, of course, true. However, this incident did not take place at McDonalds; on the contrary, this occurred as a security measure at an airport, where it is common practice to pat down travelers. Honestly, an old man touching anyone at McDonalds would not be appropriate, so this father's McDonalds connection really suggests that pat-downs are wrong on anyone, which is not what he appears to be arguing. 


2. ""Totally unacceptable," wrote one YouTube commentator. "I look at the abject terror in this tiny child's eyes, and I know who caused it. I know who the terrorist is -- it's the creep in the blue shirt.""


This is a Youtube comment in response to the video of the pat-down, one of the two CNN highlights in the article. It is a hasty generalization which the Writing 140 Course Book defines as "a broad claim on the basis of narrow evidence, and sometimes on the basis of only one or two examples." The commenter suggests that just because of this one incident, the TSA agent is a "creep" and a "terrorist." This does not take into consideration that the agent is simply carrying out his job and that perhaps he didn't even make the decision to do the pat-down, but was instead told to. The comment takes one short incident and very harshly labels an individual and his entire character.

The Effects of a BP Apology

Making a truly sincere apology that demonstrates BP is committed to preventing disaster's like the Deepwater Horizon spill in the future would help BP improve its reputation. Unfortunately, BP has yet to make a real apology. Very soon after the incident, the CEO said he was very sorry, but then followed his words with statements about how other companies were to blame, and it really wasn't BP's fault. This type of "apology" obviously did not help the Americans who lost money in lost business, and it didn't suggest how BP would help those people or fix the actual spill and the environment. Of course, the CEO's apologetic statements came too soon for the magnitude of this disaster, but they didn't make an apology at all, as they put the blame on other companies.

Almost a year later, the new CEO apologized for the disaster at a petroleum industry meeting/convention. This apology was more thorough, but it was not directed at the American public. Therefore, this apology failed to reach the appropriate public.

Although BP has set up a $20B fund for reparations for the incident, which is one of the best responses of its type from any company in the past, the oil corporation has yet to actually admit responsibility for the disaster. It cannot give full admission due to the legal issues and lawsuits that would ensue. It is understandable that in an effort to not lose their business, BP cannot fully admit fault. However, it can do everything possible to prevent a disaster like this oil spill in the future. Unfortunately, in the wake of the disaster, BP decided to shut down a company unit focused on safety complaints from within the company.  BP claimed this was because the unit was redundant, but this was a massive PR mistake, as it appeared the company was little concerned with safety and just concerned about profits.

In order to truly apologize, BP cannot make mistakes like this, and it must make clear that it is doing all it can to prevent oil spills in the future (using campaigns, donating to organizations which research cleaner energy options, etc). An apology like this would improve BP's image to people around the world and reinstall BP's self-given reputation of a green company.