Cogent and Fallacious #4

For my fourth and final cogent/fallacious reasoning article I decided to look at Aljazeera for an opinion piece. I am specifically drawn to articles on ebola in Dallas, as my home and many of my friends are there. The article I found is titled "Ebola scare revives post-9/11 public fears," and although being pumped up by fear is frustrating, this article resonated with me as not a typical fear based article.

The author Paul W. Kahn makes several great points about the United States perception that these types of tragedies can't happen here. For example, Americans not considering that Middle Eastern terrorists would arrive here directly from the Middle East to attack our country and the misconception that we are immune to ebola showing up on our doorstep in our local emergency rooms in a time when thousands of people travel in and out of our country and around the world every day. He continues on to point out that we can be terrorized even without the terrorist and we are currently being terrorized by ebola. We are ill prepared to deal with this disease entering our country. He is encouraging us to be more forward-looking when it comes to these types of issues and not wait for the problem to reach our doorstep.

I found the article to be cogent. The author referred to facts when talking about 9/11 and the current handling of the ebola crisis. He made several great common sense points such as the need to pay attention, he called for better systematic protocols at airports and suggested ample investment be made into preventing a possible tragedy.

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #2 Protected by Privacy Policies , UNLESS You Have Ebola?

The first words out of my sons mouth as he walked through the door were, "Did you hear the news, someone in Dallas has Ebola!" We consider Dallas our home, so that shocking statement sent my imagination into overdrive, creating horrific images of my dear friends in make shift hospitals, quarantined and doomed to contract this dreaded disease. I quickly got online searching for details, and found out it was true, Dallas, Texas welcomed it's first confirmed case of Ebola this week. 

In an article titled, "With Ebola, the Public’s Right to Know Trumps Patient Privacy",  Arthur Caplan of Wired tells us the story of the man who traveled to Dallas from Liberia to visit his family, unknowingly, bringing Ebola to the the U.S. Caplan insists that the government should break the laws that protect patient privacy because of the potential fear and panic it may cause the public to not know protected details about the infected individuals symptoms and treatment. 

We know Ebola is spread through body fluid. You would have to be in very close contact with this individual to have shared body fluid with him. The CDC is doing it's job and reaching out to people who could have been in contact with the infected patient. 


Caplan's arguments are fallacious, he is basiclly saying, "You need to break the law to tell us information about the infected person because we really, really, really want to know!" Yes, all of us are curious, but it doesn't justify breaking patient privacy laws. 

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #3 Equal Rights Prevail

Surfing for opinion pieces in my favorite local, online publication I was excited to see a picture of a giant rainbow flag draped across the Washington County Administration Building with the headline that read, "Supreme Court Kicks Can Down the Road. " 

Opinion columnist Dallas Hyland reports that there has been a victory for Equal Rights (not Gay Rights) under the law for all Americans. The article explains that Constitutional Law has been upheld by the Supreme Court which chose not to hear appeals on same sex marriage, making the states’ federal court rulings stand. Same sex marriage is again legal in Utah. The straight forward facts of the article remind us that attempting to impose our opinions or religious beliefs on others through legislation is a slippery slope, and one we should avoid as going down that path could easily result in the same type of discrimination being used against us.

Although it is clear that the author has strong opinions that are unpopular for this area, he uses cogent reasoning and prompts readers to think critically.

Technology is Good. What?!?

 Children’s use of media, technology and screen time (MeTS) has risen drastically over the last 10 years. If you Google search topics related to benefits and harms associated with MeTs, which MeTS to use or how children engage with MeTS your search will return over 1.5 billion resources. In academic databases can find an additional 41,000 sources  on children and MeTS. Technology is here to stay, so it is imperative we look closely at this topic and make educated and informed decisions about technology use. Parents, teachers and care givers are interested in addressing major concerns such how much time children should be allowed to spend on MeTS and possible impacts screen time could have on behavior. Some would argue that technology inhibits child development. However, studies report that technology enhances child development socially, emotionally and cognitively,  therefore, we must integrate technology use in an appropriate manner to maximize potential benefits.

One of the biggest concerns surrounding MeTS is the amount of time children are spending in front of a screen. A survey of 1.000 parents found that young children spend about 2 hours a day with screen media (1:58), which is almost the exact amount of time they reported their children play outside (2:01).  Additionally, the percentage of children using screen media for entertainment is 83%- which is very close to the percentage of children who are reading or listening to music 79%. Of the surveyed parents of young children that watch T.V. , 87 % reported that their children imitate positive behaviors learned from television programming. Most parents also reported that they have media-related rules that set time limits for media use.  Based on these statistics, we can see that the average amount of time spent on screen technology is still yielding positive behavior. 

Research determined that 72% of parents find that computers are “mostly helpful” in assisting children’s learning. Research confirms that technology use has a positive effect on the social and emotional development of children.  In one study, researchers found that children on the computer talked to their peers nine times the amount of time they spent talking to peers while assembling puzzles. Additional studies show that children working on computers prefer working with at least one to two other partners and tend to seek help from peers instead of their teachers. These collaborative benefits extend beyond the walls of the classroom with access of the internet, giving children the opportunity to connect with children in other cities, states, and around the world. Technology gives children the ability to expand their horizons in ways that were unavailable to many of us as children. 

Scientific studies confirm a multitude of cognitive benefits of computer usage as well.  Positive results include improvement in nonverbal skills, manual dexterity, long term memory, and structural knowledge. In addition, the study revealed that children using open ended computer programs developed and solved their own problems,  positively assessed their own work, and worked collaboratively with partners. Over all, children using computers also displayed higher levels of hypothesizing and wondering. One study also suggested that interaction with digital media supports learning in multiple ways, such as increased concentration, expansion of knowledge, adult observation, persistence and understanding of the world. If all of these outcomes are a result of technology use and people claim that technology is inhibiting child development, then what can we consider to be child development? These cognitive benefits of technology use promote child development.

Choosing appropriate forms of technology and the amount of time that is beneficial to children is similar to the decision making required of care givers in a variety of aspects: what is in a child's diet, what activities to allow them to attend. and which friends they spend time with. Adults need to educate themselves and make informed decisions on many things when it comes to caring for children; technology use is no different. We can not claim technology is preventing child development when research proves that technology use promotes and enhances child development when used appropriately.