Reasonable People #33: A post from the mindhacks.com archives on sacred values and taboo trade-offs, research on the downstream effects of hype over misinformation. And chipmunks.
Yes you are right, you can measure the frequency. As for arguments relying on assumptions, I agree, but you factor that in.
I’m not sure it needs measurement. An argumentation is either coherent or not.
I don’t know if you take requests but another worrying form of political irrationality is the ever greater lack of internal coherence of the arguments that are used both on the left and on the right. Lots of examples on demand.
I still rather disagree with you on this. To me the issue was not that people tried to explain what had happened but that they were using the riots as an opportunity to attack policies they disagreed with in the first place, without the slightest shred of evidence that they were linked to the riots let alone had caused them. The most generous explanation I can imagine for this is confirmation bias. Most of us would have no difficulty seeing this type of reasoning as ridiculous if the « explanation » had been for instance the racial makeup of the rioters.