Hone your media literacy skills

Puzzle through a classic ethical dilemma and decide: how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human? -- To protect against a possible resurgence of smallpox, the US government is funding research to improve treatments and vaccines. And since it’s unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus, labs are using monkeys as research subjects. But is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat? Rebecca L. Walker takes a look at this classic ethical dilemma. Lesson by Rebecca L. Walker, directed by Sharon Colman. This video was produced in collaboration with the Parr Center for Ethics, housed within the renowned Philosophy Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Parr Center is committed to integrating abstract work in ethical theory with the informed discussion of practical ethical issues, and prides itself on the development of innovative and inclusive approaches to moral and civic education. Learn more about

Puzzle through a classic ethical dilemma and decide: how do we determine the value of a life, whether human or non-human? -- To protect against a possible resurgence of smallpox, the US government is funding research to improve treatments and vaccines. And since it’s unethical to expose people to a highly lethal virus, labs are using monkeys as research subjects. But is it right to harm these animals to protect humanity from a potential threat? Rebecca L. Walker takes a look at this classic ethical dilemma. Lesson by Rebecca L. Walker, directed by Sharon Colman. This video was produced in collaboration with the Parr Center for Ethics, housed within the renowned Philosophy Department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Parr Center is committed to integrating abstract work in ethical theory with the informed discussion of practical ethical issues, and prides itself on the development of innovative and inclusive approaches to moral and civic education. Learn more about

Explore the middle ground fallacy, which assumes that the truth is always a compromise between two extreme opposing positions. -- It’s 1819. The US is preparing to make Missouri and Maine new states. One representative insists that slavery shouldn’t be allowed in any new state. Another believes it should be a state’s right to choose. A compromise is proposed: slavery will be allowed in Missouri and prohibited in Maine. Can you spot the problem with this compromise? Elizabeth Cox explores the middle ground fallacy. Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ----------------------------------------------

Explore the middle ground fallacy, which assumes that the truth is always a compromise between two extreme opposing positions. -- It’s 1819. The US is preparing to make Missouri and Maine new states. One representative insists that slavery shouldn’t be allowed in any new state. Another believes it should be a state’s right to choose. A compromise is proposed: slavery will be allowed in Missouri and prohibited in Maine. Can you spot the problem with this compromise? Elizabeth Cox explores the middle ground fallacy. Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ----------------------------------------------

Dig into the slippery slope fallacy, which assumes that one step will lead to a series of events that lead to an extreme— often bad— scenario. -- It’s 1954. Vietnamese nationalists are on the verge of securing an independent Vietnam under communist leader Ho Chi Minh. U.S. President Eisenhower claims that by virtue of the "falling domino principle," communist control of Vietnam would lead to the global spread of authoritarian communist regimes. Can you spot the problem with this argument? Elizabeth Cox explores the slippery slope fallacy. Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ----------------------

Dig into the slippery slope fallacy, which assumes that one step will lead to a series of events that lead to an extreme— often bad— scenario. -- It’s 1954. Vietnamese nationalists are on the verge of securing an independent Vietnam under communist leader Ho Chi Minh. U.S. President Eisenhower claims that by virtue of the "falling domino principle," communist control of Vietnam would lead to the global spread of authoritarian communist regimes. Can you spot the problem with this argument? Elizabeth Cox explores the slippery slope fallacy. Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ----------------------

Explore the data analysis method known as p-hacking, where data is misrepresented as statistically significant. -- In 2011, a group of researchers conducted a study designed to find an impossible result. Their study involved real people, truthfully reported data, and commonplace statistical analyses. So how did they do it? The answer lies in a statistical method scientists often use to try to figure out whether their results mean something, or if they’re random noise. James A. Smith explores p-hacking. Lesson by James A. Smith, directed by Anton Bogaty. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ---------------------------------------------- View fu

Explore the data analysis method known as p-hacking, where data is misrepresented as statistically significant. -- In 2011, a group of researchers conducted a study designed to find an impossible result. Their study involved real people, truthfully reported data, and commonplace statistical analyses. So how did they do it? The answer lies in a statistical method scientists often use to try to figure out whether their results mean something, or if they’re random noise. James A. Smith explores p-hacking. Lesson by James A. Smith, directed by Anton Bogaty. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ---------------------------------------------- View fu

Dig into the false analogy fallacy, which assumes that because two things share a characteristic, they must be alike in other respects. -- It’s 1997. The United States Senate has called a hearing about global warming. Some expert witnesses point out that past periods in Earth’s history were warmer than the 20th century. Because such variations existed long before humans, they claim the current trend is also the result of natural variation. Can you spot the problem with this argument? Elizabeth Cox explores the false analogy fallacy. Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ----------------------------

Dig into the false analogy fallacy, which assumes that because two things share a characteristic, they must be alike in other respects. -- It’s 1997. The United States Senate has called a hearing about global warming. Some expert witnesses point out that past periods in Earth’s history were warmer than the 20th century. Because such variations existed long before humans, they claim the current trend is also the result of natural variation. Can you spot the problem with this argument? Elizabeth Cox explores the false analogy fallacy. Lesson by Elizabeth Cox, directed by TOGETHER. Support Our Non-Profit Mission ---------------------------------------------- Support us on Patreon: Check out our merch: ---------------------------------------------- Connect With Us ---------------------------------------------- Sign up for our newsletter: Follow us on Facebook: Find us on Twitter: Peep us on Instagram: ---------------------------------------------- Keep Learning ----------------------------