The Logical Fallacies of Time Magazine’s “Technology Hoax” Article

Before I begin, let me make a very clear statement:

I don’t believe that technology in our classrooms is a silver bullet. Adding technology cannot alone increase engagement, empower our students, and lead to academic and life success (during and long after school is over). Yet, the recent set of articles from NPR and Time Magazine (among others) that paint a picture of technology as a detriment to learning is both limited in scope and altogether a one-sided argument that does not allow for a gray area to appear. Technology, as with any other tool used for learning, can be helpful or detrimental depending on how it is used, the purpose, and the connection to what’s happening inside our brain! That being said, our world is flush with technology and it is increasing at an exponential pace. It’s not going away. We can either choose to run from it or choose to leverage it in practical, challenging, inspiring, and useful ways now and in the future.

On August 31st, 2016, right at the cusp of a new school year, Time Magazine released an article by Dr. Kardaras, the author of the new book Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction is Hijacking Our Kids—and How to Break the TranceThe book, which I have recently read, is an eye-opening account of what can happen when kids and adults suffer from technology and video game addiction. Dr. Karadaras goes to lengths to show a connection/correlation between technology and a wide variety of mental health issues that could arise from the overuse as a child or adult. In the book he advocates for a balanced life style and age appropriate exposure to technology.

Just as we have books that believe the role of technology to is to change everyone’s lives for the better (think Bold or Abundance by Peter Diamandis), I guess it is to be expected to have books like Glow Kids that take an opposite and contradictory approach to the benefits and drawbacks of technology.

However, the article, titled “Screens in School are a $60 Billion Hoax”, in Time Magazine is different. It misrepresented technology as a) awful for students all the time, b) implemented by naive educators and administrators who don’t know much about technology, c) having no benefits to learning, and d) only being used in schools because big companies are pushing it on us in the education sector in order to make money.

What really upset me as a father, teacher, and now school administrator is the same things that upset me when I wrote a recent response to an NPR article denigrating technology use in the classroom: There are millions of parents, teachers, and community members that read these articles and use this as their sole reason not to use technology in the classroom, or advocate for school-wide programs that level the digital equity gap we see across this nation.

Furthermore, as I go at length to show below, the entire article is filled with logical fallacies to support the argument against technology.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people.

I would have liked to point out a few of these logical fallacies to the author in the comments of the article, but comments were not made available on the Time Magazine site, and thus most of the conversation around this piece came on Facebook, Twitter, and other online areas. I welcome comments below and would like to continue a dialogue around this topic!

thou shall not commit logical fallacies

Below is a list of excerpts from the article I shared above (and feel free to read the entire article on Time Magazine’s website here). Each excerpt is linked to a logical fallacy, which is partly why I take offense to much of the article as a one-sided piece.

The screen revolution has seen pedagogy undergo a seismic shift as technology now dominates the educational landscape. In almost every classroom in America today, you will find some type of screen—smartboards, Chromebooks, tablets, smartphones. From inner-city schools to those in rural and remote towns, we have accepted tech in the classroom as a necessary and beneficial evolution in education.

This is a lie.

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: Strawman

You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.[/color-box]

Tech in the classroom not only leads to worse educational outcomes for kids, which I will explain shortly, it can also clinically hurt them. I’ve worked with over a thousand teens in the past 15 years and have observed that students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only appear to struggle more with attention and focus, but also seem to suffer from an adolescent malaise that appears to be a direct byproduct of their digital immersion. Indeed, over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to screen time correlating to increased ADHD,screen addiction, increased aggression, depression, anxiety and even psychosis.

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: False Cause

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.

Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.[/color-box]

But if that’s true, why would we have allowed these “educational” Trojan horses to slip into our schools? Follow the money.

Education technology is estimated to become a $60 billion industry by 2018. With the advent of the Common Core in 2010, which nationalized curriculum and textbooks standards, the multi-billion-dollar textbook industry became very attractive for educational gunslingers looking to capitalize on the new Wild West of education technology. A tablet with educational software no longer needed state-by-state curricular customization. It could now be sold to the entire country.

This new Gold Rush attracted people like Rupert Murdoch, not otherwise known for his concern for American pedagogy, who would go on to invest over $1 billion into an ed-tech company called Amplify, with the stated mission of selling every student in America their proprietary tablet—for only $199—along with the software and annual licensing fees.

Amplify hired hundreds of video game designers to build educational videogames—while they and other tech entrepreneurs attempted to sell the notion that American students no longer had the attention span for traditional education. Their solution: Educate them in a more stimulating and “engaging” manner.

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: Anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

It’s often much easier for people to believe someone’s testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more ‘abstract’ statistical reality.[/color-box]

But let’s look more closely at that claim. ADHD rates have indeed exploded by 50 percent over the past 10 years with the CDC indicating that rates continue to rise by five percent per year. Yet many researchers and neuroscientists believe that this ADHD epidemic is a direct result of children being hyper-stimulated. Using hyper-stimulating digital content to “engage” otherwise distracted students exacerbates the problem that it endeavors to solve. It creates a vicious and addictive ADHD cycle: The more a child is stimulated, the more that child needs to keep getting stimulated in order to hold their attention.

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: Composition/division

You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.

Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.[/color-box]

Murdoch’s Amplify wasn’t the only dubious ed-tech cash-grab. The city of Los Angeles had entered into a $1.3 billion contract in 2014 to buy iPads loaded with Pearson educational software for all of its 650,000 K through 12 students—until the FBI investigated its contract and found that now-former Superintendent John Deasy had a close relationship with Apple and Pearson executives. (Before the deal was killed in December 2014, the Pearson platform had incomplete and essentially worthless curriculum and such feeble security restrictions students that bypassed them in weeks.)

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White

You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities when in fact more possibilities exist.

Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.[/color-box]

Despite the Amplify and LA debacles, others still seek to convince naïve school administrators that screens are the educational panacea. Yet as more American schools lay off teachers while setting aside scarce budget dollars for tech, many educators and parents alike have begun to ask: Do any of these hypnotic marvels of the digital age actually produce better educational outcomes for the kids who use them?

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.[/color-box]

We could look to Finland, whose school system routinely ranks toward the top globally and has chosen to skip the tech and standardized testing. Instead, Finnish students are given as many as four outdoor free-play breaks per day, regardless of the weather—while here, a sedentary American child sitting in front of a glowing screen playing edu-games while over-scheduled and stressed by standardized testing is seen as the Holy Grail.

Dr. Kentaro Toyama, an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Information, once believed that technology in the classroom could solve the problems of modern urban education. No Luddite, he had received his Ph.D. in computer science from Yale and had moved to India in 2004 to help found a new research lab for Microsoft; while there, he became interested in how computers, mobile phones and other technologies could help educate India’s billion-plus population.

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: Appeal to authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.[/color-box]

The list of supporting education experts and researchers is long:

  • The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said in a 2015 report that heavy users of computers in the classroom “do a lot worse in most learning outcomes” and that: “In the end, technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching.”
  • An exhaustive meta-study conducted by Durham University in 2012 that systemically reviewed 48 studies examining technology’s impact on learning found that “technology-based interventions tend toproduce just slightly lower levels of improvement when compared with other researched interventions and approaches.”
  • The Alliance for Children, a consortium of some of the nation’s top educators and professors, in a 2000 report concluded: “School reform is a social challenge, not a technological problem…a high-tech agenda for children seems likely to erode our most precious long-term intellectual reserves—our children’s minds.”
  • Patricia Greenfield, distinguished professor of psychology at UCLA, analyzed more than 50 studies on learning and points out that reading for pleasure among young people has decreased in recent decades, which is problematic because “studies show that reading develops imagination, induction, reflection and critical thinking, as well as vocabulary…in a way that visual media such as video games and television do not.”
  • Education psychologist and author of Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds Jane Healy spent years doing research into computer use in schools and, while she expected to find that computers in the classroom would be beneficial, now feels that “time on the computer might interfere with development of everything from the young child’s motor skills to his or her ability to think logically and distinguish between reality and fantasy.”

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: The Texas sharpshooter

You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.

This ‘false cause’ fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he’s a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance, but don’t necessarily indicate that there is a causal relationship.[/color-box]

There has also been surprising research coming out of Canada: Students don’t even prefer e-learning over traditional education. In a 2011 study, researchers found that students actually preferred “ordinary, real-life lessons” to using technology. Those results surprised the researchers: “It is not the portrait that we expected, whereby students would embrace anything that happens on a more highly technological level. On the contrary—they really seem to like access to human interaction, a smart person at the front of the classroom.”

We are projecting our own infatuation with shiny technology, assuming our little digital natives would rather learn using gadgets—while what they crave and need is human contact with flesh-and-blood educators.

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: The fallacy fallacy

You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.[/color-box]

Schools need to heed this research in order to truly understand how to best nurture real intrinsic learning and not fall for the Siren song of the tech companies—and all of their hypnotic screens.

At the risk of committing the same logical fallacies in my argument (see below for the possible logical fallacy I could commit!) I avoided combatting cherry-picked research above with my own cherry-picked research for the benefit of technology in schools (i.e. Project Red).

This post was more about looking at how we can talk about issues like this, and bring up valid research on both sides of the fence, without taking a one-sided approach and stance on an issue that is going to impact our kids in schools around the country.

Would love to hear your comments below, but try not to commit “tu quoque” in your comment 🙂

[color-box]Logical Fallacy: tu quoque

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism.

Pronounced tookwokwee. Literally translating as ‘you too’ this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.[/color-box]

Join 76,000 other learners (and teachers)

And get new posts every week by email.

Powered by ConvertKit

Join the discussion 17 Comments

  • Thanks, AJ – I admire your style!
    A good portion of our responsibilities as educators is to prepare, as best as we can guess, learners for their future. If there is anyone in the room who feels the future will be absent of technology, please raise your hand. I want to introduce you to my retirement-age parents who eagerly learn daily so they can function and contribute in a technologically driven world.

    • AJ Juliani says:

      Love this point Bob. This is true that our responsibility it in helping our students to prepare for a world that is (and will continue to be) rapidly changing!

  • Jeffrey Krebs says:

    Hi, AJ:
    I appreciate this post and your approach to this important topic.
    In discussions with parents, I hear a lot of fear about technology in the classroom or relatively newer pedagogical approaches (i.e., they came after the parents completed their primary and secondary education) such as flipped learning that centers on the perception that technology is intended to replace teachers rather than free teachers to spend more time on compelling learning experiences and differentiation. As you suggest above in your description of the different logical fallacies, while it is possible for technology to be applied inappropriately in a learning context, that does not mean that technology is inappropriate in a learning context–after all, you could argue the same about pen and paper. Most teachers I know are working harder than ever to deliver richer experiences with technology than they were able to without–and these experiences are often outside the classroom, very hands-on, real-world learning experiences.
    Thinking through the Time Magazine article and your post above, I think this highlights the needs for educational leaders to engage more in helping parents through the change process (similar to what we need to do with many experienced educators) to be smart consumers of technology in education for their children, and understand when it is being applied well or not so well.
    Thanks for raising your voice on this important topic!

  • Philip Vinogradov says:

    Well done AJ. In my opinion, another example of promoting click-bait on the part of Time, and Dr. Kardaras’s arguments reminiscent of the logical fallacies behind the vaccine/autism hysteria. Dr. Kardaras works with children in crisis, and has curated arguments that support his conclusions.

    Technology will never transform pedagogy, but supports and accelerates transformative pedagogy. Jeff and Bob articulate clearly how we would be remise as parents and learning communities if we did not engage in balanced and reflective use of technology to support critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creation of knowledge. To do otherwise would be to prepare students for the world that was.

  • Rose Marie Warrell says:

    Anyone can argue against anything that is new and say it’s bad for kids or any type of learner. I see technology as another way of learning. I have access to much more reading material than I ever had as a kid. I have a Kindle, iPad, iPhone, tablets, and I have tons of books stored on these devices and I only have to carry one with me and have so many choices whenever and wherever I may be.

    I believe that ADHD, anxiety, depression, increased aggression, and all those other medical issues have always been around. It hasn’t increased. Our awareness has increased due to having the technology to allow people from all over the world to have the ability to communicate much more efficiently and effectively. I think the paddle should come back and then maybe there would be a lot less aggression. There are so many children being passed from one foster family to another and in between those times they go back to live with mom and/or dad and then after many court visits they may get lucky and finally get a stable home where they eventually figure out that they’re there to stay. Talk about ADHD, anxiety, depression, and aggression all in one little girl. There’s more to these issues and technology is not the main cause. In fact, I would say it’s a very minute one.

    I have had the opportunity to take kids to places in the world that they may have never experienced if it wasn’t for technology. True that they can open a book and be there, but I have to argue that pictures vs. real life images (movie like) is not the same. I can now Skype with other classrooms anywhere in the world and students are introduced to other people and cultures. Students are given the chance to hear how others from different areas feel and think about things and see how similar or different we are from each other. Having that ability to converse with real people vs. just reading about them is so much more powerful and can have a huge impact on the way they (we) learn.

    I have four grandsons and one game they love is Minecraft. They watch numerous YouTube videos to learn how to play the games and what are the best strategies when creating their world or village. Mind you that my grandsons are 6, 4, & 3! Their vocabulary is very high. They tell me about their villages, their inventories and what they need more of, pick-axes, blacksmiths, submarines, and going to the surface of their ocean. They use a lot more words; however, a lot of these words would have not been introduced into their vocabularies until later in life. They also tell me about the minerals, diamonds being the strongest one, and obsidian is one of my grandsons favorites.

    I also love that we have programs that we can use to level and differentiate for our students on a much better level. Students are able to work at their own pace and get help from a real life teacher when needed (me). Students are not left at their own devices. I see us teachers becoming more of a ficilitator and students learning to take responsibility for their learning. Of course, we are there ensuring that they are doing what needs to be done, but students drive their education. If they struggle, they can take more time and get the help they need without feeling like they are being ran over by others who learn differently. Those students who are more self-motivated and/or intelligent will have the ability to keep moving on in their educational career and not be held back because we have to teach the curriculum at a certain pace.

    I have been wondering…really what is the difference between having your nose in a book 24/7 and reading articles, blogs, newspapers, books, etc on a device 24/7? A lot of games on devices are just as good as playing board games (but, hey, I won’t lose all the pieces). I hate the way that some people are making technology a bad thing. If it wasn’t for technology we wouldn’t, have cars, planes, bikes, movies, pens/pencils, microwaves, guns, etc, I know that you get the picture. Technology is our world and will be our kids’ world/future.

    Technology will not rule the world, as some people think. There will always be a need for teachers, doctors, police officers, etc. because technology cannot run itself.

    I hope that made sense and this got me fired up. Thank you A.J. Juliani

  • Rich B says:

    Articles like those from NPR and Time magazine are valuable in the discussion to counterbalance those who find technology to be a panacea. Too often the market pushes tech with claims of increased test scores and engagement. For example the early advertisements for 3-D projectors made such claims before they were even put into classrooms. So there is an economic driver that sometimes darkens the landscape.
    It is also true that school districts or classrooms sometimes adopt technologies without the requisite development of the teaching staff with regard to best practices. Anecdotally, students in a local public school have told me of teachers who sit at their desks reading the newspaper while the class is expected to engage with a slide show on the smart board. There exists realities at both ends of the spectrum, from expert pedagogy with respect to technology to abuse of the same.
    The comparison to Finland, like so many others in these articles, swims in confirmation bias. Why is there no mention of how much more Finland invests in professional development for their teachers? No mention that good teaching practices are not dependent upon the medium. So, I agree the articles are flawed, but not without merit and should perhaps be viewed as cautionary tales.

  • Holli Kenley says:

    First of all, what a pleasure it is to read thoughtful, mindful, and purposeful comments which enrich and stimulate the conversation at hand!
    In my work as a marriage and family therapist, author, and speaker and in exploring issues which challenge the human condition, I often refer to a behavioral concept, “The degree of exposure or access to or consumption of anything is a predictor to the degree of consequence – either positive or negative.” (Don’t know A.J.if this is a logical fallacy? But, thought I’d put it out there :)). Whether it is our exposure to sunshine or to our favorite animated super heroes; our consumption of coffee or of kale; or the degree to which we are able to access health care treatment or ….access technology – that “degree” can impact us in harmful and/or healing ways.
    Thus, I love what Philip said, “…we would be remiss as parents and learning communities if we did not engage in balanced and reflective use of technology…” I believe a balanced diet of direct and indirect communication, social interaction, and of learning fuels the soul and feeds the human empathic spirit.

    • Rose Warrell says:

      Very well said…I have to agree with you. We don’t want our students to become antisocial due to too much on screen time; however, they do need to have exposure. We do need that human contact and one-on-one conversations. Thank you:)

  • Kate Lee says:

    Thank you for your well-structured response in systematically breaking down the Time magazine article’s illogical conclusions regarding the use of technology in our schools. It is disheartening to see the author use alarmist words (screen addiction, digital drugs, psychotic breaks) with a very narrow gamer population to discount the many positive, technological advances in education. An article such as this that is so heavily skewed toward misinforming the reader has one sole purpose – to sell books. This article was written to promote the author’s new book, “Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction is Hijacking Our Kids.” Note that the publisher of this book, St. Martin’s Press, has a longstanding relationship with Time Magazine. Is it now in vogue for major news outlets to spread disinformation that is grossly distorted and untrue, and see what sticks and sells with the readers and viewers? Rather than perpetuating alarmist and unsubstantiated theories, this magazine could better spend its ‘time’ addressing the remarkable improvements in educational equity and accessibility powered by technology.”

  • Nicole S. says:

    It is important to keep in mind that one can make statistical figures fit your hypothesis. As Mark Twain once said, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Technology, as with anything, should be used in moderation. It has its purpose and place and can be effective if implemented correctly.

  • Claudia Paganelli says:

    Hi AJ,
    Thank you for sharing Dr. Kardaras’ article as I was not familiar with his work and recent book. As I was reading his article, I personally felt that the way he was presenting his argument heavily one-sided. As you mentioned in your blog post, he chose a list of a few education experts and researchers to support his argument without even offering the work of other experts and researchers that have an opposite take on the subject. I agree with you on the fact that technology has its own benefits and limitations and that educators need to make the best use of it in order to improve students leaning experiences. My hope is that parents reading this article or his book would be capable of taking the information with a grain of salt and to look for other resources before forming their own opinions.

  • Rose P. says:

    Hi A.J.,
    Thank you for your post. The article and your response to it reminded me of a skill that I learned when I was first starting to use the Internet for research – consider the source! One of the first lessons we teach digital natives is that not everything that you read on the Internet is true. I appreciate the way that you dissected the article’s claims and presented both sides of the argument. This motivated me to be more critical and guess the next logical fallacy you would describe. When I read the original article, my gut reaction was that it seemed alarmist and I dismissed it. You are right – it is easy to take a one-sided approach. Your thorough analysis made me realize that instead of simply dismissing articles at face value, I could dig deeper and understand what specific ideas I disagree with and why. Practicing this skill can help me develop my positions/ideas further and help me be more understanding of opposing viewpoints. This skill seems especially relevant in the current political climate and the polarizing discourse. Fact check, people!


    • Katie says:

      Hi A.J.,
      Thank you for your post! I am a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University and am working towards my masters in secondary education. It is amazing how much professional development is available to teachers in regards to digital use in the classroom, yet this author is undermining the positive effects it can have on student learning and engagement.

      You stated that “technology, as with any other tool used for learning, can be helpful or detrimental depending on how it is used, the purpose, and the connection to what’s happening inside our brain!” The truth of this statement really stood out to me. I have heard from parents and other teachers about their concerns about implementing technology in the classroom because of distractions. However, as their teacher, it is our job to set the norms around technology and how it should be properly used. This is obviously something easier said than done, but takes practice and learning from our mistakes. Technology surrounds us whether we like it our not — the students we teach today are engulfed in it and we need to meet their needs. In one of my classes, we have been discussing how the skill set to be successful post high school (
      college bound or career bound) has completely changed over the past few decades. We now have 21st century learners that need to learn how to effectively research and discuss currently issues and topics. If we as educators do not teach them these skills, they will struggle being in the “real world.” As teachers, we are there to prepare them for their futures, and if we are not meeting their needs, we are not doing our jobs.

      I have enjoyed following your posts and look forward to learning more!

      Thank you!

  • […] Hoax Fallacies. Explore the logical fallacies one blogger identifies in Time magazine’s “Technology Hoax” […]

  • John Brentar says:

    Sorry, but you are wrong. For instance, you accuse Kardaras of false causality when he discusses the relationship between tech in the classroom and poor educational outcomes.

    You have elected, in your analysis of Kardaras, to read past several key words in the passage you cite which demonstrate that he is, in fact, careful NOT to assign a cause-effect relationship. I will capitalize them for your convenience.

    “it CAN also clinically hurt them”

    “students who have been raised on a high-tech diet not only APPEAR to struggle more with attention and focus, but also SEEM to suffer. . .”

    “over two hundred peer-reviewed studies point to screen time CORRELATING to increased ADHD, screen addiction, increased aggression, depression, anxiety and even psychosis.”

    All of the words I have capitalized in fact move the assertions away from any notion of causality. You, sir, are the one committing the fallacious reasoning, not Kardaras.

    • AJ Juliani says:

      Very careful use of words, however, put in the context of the entire piece (where the author makes a cause-effect case) they seem to be supporting the false causality.

Leave a Reply