|
The reason for the argument Mail readers exist in a distorted version of reality. The Daily Mail positions itself as a beacon of truth trying to shine a light on how the average reader is being conned by scientists, so-called experts and the government. In order to convince its readers that they are indeed being lied to; the Mail has to fly in the face of scientific / expert opinion on quite a few major issues. In order to do this they need to discredit such viewpoints by appealing to the readers to use their own eyes to perceive the truth: they need to use the 'Is it just me?' argument. The 'Is it just me?' argument works - as is now becoming the norm - by appealing to the strongest evidence a Mail reader can encounter or put forward: anecdotal evidence. The Mail reader can tackle any issue by making a simplistic observation and claiming 'Is it just me, or does anyone else not notice this?', with the implication that this observation proves the theory or scientist is completely wrong. For example, the 'Is it just me?' argument is constantly rolled-out to deny global warming, particularly during a cold spell, when even the simplest of Mail readers can't help but notice that the weather they are witnessing does not seem to fit into the eco-loonies worldview of temperature rises. This argument perfectly suits the dissemination of global warming myths; for example: 'Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that when you put ice into a vodka and coke and the ice melts, the actual water level doesn't increase?' The argument is drawing on Archimedes theory of floating and is perfectly correct. However, the implication is that the sea level should be (or is) staying the same because of this fact. This is not correct. As particles heat, they expand, the sea is getting warmer and expanding; furthermore large parts of the ice that is melting is actually overland, and therefore does add to sea rises (for sea levels to not rise through melting ice, all of it would have to be already in the water) [almost any article on the internet that allows comments on the subject of melting ice and rising sea levels is wrongly 'corrected' by people pointing out that ice melting in water does not raise the water level]. Subsequently the argument is simple, relies on a simple observation or fact that at face value does seem to disprove or raise serious doubts about the opinion or theories of 'so-called experts' etc. However, the arguments are only appealing at face value and rely on the person reading the argument to not want or have the ability to question the argument: step forward the average Mail reader. Mail readers exist not to think, but to absorb others' opinions. The Mail has kindly put in place a rating system, so the smug guy that points out the above myth would get a good green rating, which further reduces the chances of the average Mail reader questioning the information put forward. Remember, in the mind of the average Mail reader observation always beats theory (even if the theory is based on observation, observation only triumphes if it is made by them, or another Mail commentator or writer). How to spot the argument The argument can be prefixed in a variety of ways: I'm right because [insert tenuous anecdote / observation here] This cannot be true because [insert tenuous anecdote / observation here] Is it just me or has anyone else noticed [insert tenuous anecdote / observation here] It can also be highlighted by a suffix: [insert tenuous anecdote / observation here] It's so obvious! [insert tenuous anecdote / observation here] Why can no-one / they not see this?
An example 'When I was young we had much higher tides than we do today, and much hotter summers as well. Why can no-one else see that the world is actually getting colder, not hotter?' Distant, long-past and fading observational memories always beats theories, particularly theories that involve the weather. Tabloid newspapers love the weather, whether it is really hot, really cold, really wet or really dry: it is always front page news. It is therefore a popular topic amongst readers, and the older you are the more direct experience you have of weather. Therefore the above example draws perfectly on observational anecdotes. Think of it logically, if you have lived for 50 years, you may witnessed a tide during those 50 years that was higher than it has been in your area for the last five year; the obvious conclusion: sea levels cannot have risen if recent tides have not matched that historical event. However, if you are 50 years old, the chances are you have seen an extremely high tide, which makes your observation invalid - one extreme weather event proves nothing. Nonetheless, at face value it is enough to convince those who do not think or question, and therefore functions well as a 'Is it just me?' argument. The importance of the argument It is vital for the Mail that it can distort truth and meaning through the use of anecdotes. Writers like Littlejohn rely almost solely on anecdotes sent in via readers (and recycled news in the Mail) to construct their arguments. If you strip away the anecdotes there is little left, certainly not any real evidence or carefully constructed arguments. It is therefore essential that Mail readers accept the validity of anecdotal arguments and evidence; the 'Is it just me?' argument serves to reinforce the validity of such arguments by the virtues that firstly; at face value it is convincing and secondly; the arguments can easily be created and put forward by Mail readers - and who doesn't enjoy the feeling of being right and correcting someone? The main reason that such an argument distorts truth is that the argument is often a non sequitar or post hoc argument: it simply is not valid, even though it may appear valid in its own right (i.e. the argument that sea ice melting does not raise sea levels is correct, but this actually misses the point of why sea levels are rising and therefore is not relevant to the argument). The arguments are normally put forward to challenge big issues like climate change, but it can be used against any issue where the reader feels that they have observed something that contradicts the position of the 'expert'. The argument relies on the assumption that most 'so-called experts' either do not know what they are doing, or are actively distorting the truth to fit some kind of agenda (pursued to the detriment of the Mail reader). This is a view supported and constantly put forward in the Mail through the use of inverted commas and badly reported science stories. The argument is an essential tool to dismiss wisdom, science and expert opinions - something the Mail is very fond of doing.
|
