This story violates the rules of critical thinking by overgeneralizing and holding biases.
This story is about Michael Phelps and the recent surfacing of a picture of him smoking marijuana at a party. Phelps is not being charged for the crime due to "lack of physical evidence," even though others in the investigation are being charged for possession. This presents a problem in critical thinking:
- Phelps is receiving a bias in the investigation in the sense that his fame status got him out of the penalty for his actions. Many think it is unfair that he receives "special circumstances" because he's a great olympic swimmer. There is a double standard there for him, and also the generalization that famous people get the easy way out.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThis story about Michael Phelps is definitely an example of critical thinking gone wrong!
Even though Michael Phelps is a popular celebrity, celebrity status has not stopped other stars from sports, movies, TV and music from getting in trouble for drug possession or intoxication.
The article states that Michael Phelps was in a photo holding a bong, but not smoking it in the photo. Does this mean that he wasn't smoking it at all at the party? Maybe this is what the police mean by "lack of physical evidence". I am sure that Phelp's friends covered for him as well, if he is a nice guy. Maybe he even bought the marijuana (which was not mentioned in the article!).
What do you think?
R. Wexelbaum
He apologized for his actions, so I assume he's admitting to smoking it. I guess that could be "lack of evidence," they can't charge him on his word alone.
ReplyDeleteWell...apologies usually follow accepting blame. If Phelps did not actually smoke marijuana, and people were accusing him of doing so and putting it in the papers, he could sue them for libel.
ReplyDelete