Talk:Bandwagon effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Fixed
Somebody edited it so there's the word "poop" scattared about the topic. I'll fix it <<
[edit] What about sports bandwagons?
It is the social effect caused by the success of a certain sports team. When a team is experiencing a period of success (most commonly defined as winning), there is a spike in merchandise sales, television ratings, etc. Overall, there is an increase in attention paid to winning teams. The attention, in turn, is translated into an increase of the fan-base of that sports team. Examples: -Merchandise sales in the NFL are always dependant on winning success - especially top 5 teams. -The New York Yankees are probably one of the largest fan bases of any sports team that has ever existed, due to their success. They have won more than 20 World Series and appeared in more than 30.
[edit] help
were doing a school report on bandwagons and we need help on examples and practical uses of then if any one can help plez let me know
Response: See the research on ulcer treatment, by Prof. Barry Marshall & Dr Robin Warren of Perth Australia, that proved a key cause to be a bacterium (h. pylori) rather than the then prevailing view that ulcers were due to stomach acidity caused by stress. Their discovery earned them the 2005 Nobel Prize for Medicine - but their research was initially unpopular and took years to gain mass acceptance, as the pharmaceutical industry had large investments in ulcer treatments based on the unproven but generally accepted stress hypothesis, which enjoyed support from a "band-wagon" effect.
Also see the article on "groupthink" - perhaps add "weapons of mass-destruction - Iraq" and "Iraq invasion" to the classic examples of groupthink & the bandwagon effect.
[edit] bad citation?
Does this citation "Reid, Mark J.: The distance to hide the center of the galaxy, Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics Vol. 31, pp. 345 - 372 (1993), available on line at [1] " have anything to do at all with the topic? It apears to be more about the galaxy and does not mention 'bandwagon' once. Rudraksha 03:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I looked this link over, and has no apperent relation to "Bandwagons" I hae deleted it --Robin63 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] music bandwagon add
Does anyone have a cite for this newly added 'Use in the Music Industry' bit? It doesn't seem to really differentiate from the main definition, but I don't want to delete it if there's real usage of this (as opposed to just trends and the whole existance of the Top 40). -Thespian 01:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I question the "in science" section
the examples and rationale in this seciton heavily resemble propaganda bandied about by the neo-creationist "Intelligent Design" movement to discredit the idea scientists study empirical evidence, implying scientists follow a bandwagon rather than arrive at similar conclusions because those conclusions are what the evidence empirically supports.
If a scientific study truly follows the scientific method, and its calculations are mathematically sound, then no matter how much you try to bias the conclusion you will be unable to change your findings. Under the presented rationale the color of chloroplasts (green) would be reported blue, yellow, or purple if scientists weren't introducing bias into their results.
Notice in the example the implication that the distance between the sun and galaxy center is "supposed" to "differ considerably" across publications because of different methods of measuremet, otherwise it's biased. A distance measured using a tape measure is the same distance measured using light is the same distance measured using radio reflection, and no amount of "rechecking calculations" will change that to a different value if the findings which established and confirmed the "accepted value" were sound. If this example is supposed to be a controversial topic then citations are absolutely required (showing both bandwagon mentality and evidence of tampering by "correcting calculations").
I suggest better and citable examples be provided, for instance, a study showing a lack of varying hypotheses (in the precise definition of the word) on topics in which there has not been enough empirical data to rule out possible alternatives. (4/30/2007)
I personally know of multiple examples which contradict the claims in the section on the bandwagon effect in science. I also searched for any paper on the subject, but found nothing, and googling "bandwagon effect in science" turned up this article as the first hit, with following hits having no direct relevance to the bandwagon effect existing in the scientific community. I don't have much experience here, so let me know if I am out of line, but it seems like the proper course is to remove that section until someone can find any source of source that corroborates the claims it makes. James McBride 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
