Discussion Question #29

Well, here's the last discussion post for the Fall 2010 semester. For the last discussion question, I'll focus on a concept that I just saw in a TV commercial a few seconds ago. Appealing to emotion is a pretty convincing way to support an argument. It might not always be a "logical" or "reasonable" way to argue, but it definitely plays to the weakness that humans have to certain issues/topics.

Just a few minutes ago, the commercial with the images/video of all the abused animals came on. They're trying to get donations/various help for these animals, including rescuing them or just reporting suspected animal abusers, but I really can't see those images without feeling pretty sad/depressed. There are several other similar commercials that appeal to pity, such as starving children in Africa, but it can be really depressing to have that commercial come on at really any time of day. Every human has a weakness for some sort of feeling bad/pity, so it's really effective in bringing the issues to attention. Sad, but effective.

Discussion Question #28

I'd say the favorite part of this class was the fact that it gave me my own schedule as to how I'd do my work. I guess that comes with any online class, but I really enjoyed the blogging layout. It's a pretty effective and easy way to communicate, as well as a great place to share understandings of the material we're covering. I even would look at other posts from classmates if I had trouble understanding a certain topic. Also, nothing was really overwhelming about this class. It was pretty straightforward with the reading as well as the group activities. Tests weren't too bad,and if you read a few times through the material before-hand, you'd be fine.

I don't really have any "dislikes" about this class. It was never a thing where I'd go "aw man, now I have to go do this Comm 41 homework". It was more like after a long day of school and other various things, I'd read at night, log on to my blog, spend a little bit of time typing out 150 words, and post right before I'd go to bed. Pretty nonstressful and relaxing.

Discussion Question #27

Wow, I can't believe how fast this semester flew by. As we're coming into the last discussion week, I feel like I've actually been able to take concepts we've discussed in class and have applied them into my general daily conversations without even realizing it. Just the other day, a few friends and I were sitting out in front of Yogurtland having a pretty deep conversation, ranging from politics, certain religious issues, Korea, and general opinions of other people that we've come across in the past. The conversation quickly turned into breaking down all the fallacies, composition issues, and all of the weak/invalid arguments people more often than not use. A pretty easy example was on the discussion of agnostic vs. atheist, also talking about deism.

Ex: I have a certain friend who proclaims himself as a radical extremist right-wing hardcore Christian, who constantly sparks off various debates on Facebook over Jesus and various Christian faiths. I don't have anything against Christianity or anything like that, but I do take issue with people who "shift the burden of proof" when proclaiming God does/doesn't exist, and will try to make you prove them wrong.

Various occurences pop up all like that all the time where I'll just realize, "Oh, that's an invalid argument because of this this and that", or "You're basically using reverse causation to prove your point", etc etc etc. I knew I'd enjoy this class before the semester even began, generally because I like to debate, but I really felt like I was able to learn quite a bit that will further help me on any future discussions. I should be able to hold my own even better now in whatever discussion I have in the future, using purely logical concepts instead of spewing fallacies, ad hominems, strawman arguments, and other bad ways of arguing I'm sure most of us have been exposed to.

Discussion Question #26

For the last discussion question of the week, I'm focusing on the differences between particular and general causes and effect claims. First though, I'll focus on the normal conditions that are present when we observe a cause and effect claim.

When we hear a cause and effect claim, such as "Jim walking outside during the winter caused him to catch a cold", we have to treat it like a regular argument when judging it's validity and it's strength. The more specific a cause/effect claim is, the less likely it is that the cause is true and the effect is false. We could make it as specific as possible, such as:

Jim rarely gets sick.
Jim was only wearing a t-shirt and shorts.
It was 45 degreees outside.
Jim wasn't feeling ill before going for a walk.
etc etc etc.

As the book says, "we could go on forever" when making a claim as specific as possible. That's why normal conditions is essential to understanding the obvious and unstated claims that are present to establish the strength/validity between the cause and the effect.

Particular Cause and Effect:
The book defines this type as a "this happened once, then that happened once" kind of event, such as Spot barking and waking up Dick in the middle of the night. It's specific, uses specific events and sequences, and describes a specific occurence. However, we must establish a particular cause and effect event by trying to establish a generalization that describes the correlation of "Every time this happens, that happens".

General Cause and Effect:
This is where general causes and effects come in. It's a broad statement that explains the happenings of a particular cause and effect event.

In the example of Jim walking outside and catching a cold, we can make the generalization such as: "Walking outside in harsh winter conditions without protective/warming clothing can cause illness".

Discussion Question #25: Mission Critical

When I first clicked on the "Mission: Critical" link, I wasn't exactly sure what I was supposed to do. After realizing it's a general review of pretty much all the concepts we've been covering, I immediately bookmarked it. This general page works as a very effective review approach for earlier concepts such as "ambiguity/vagueness" to concepts such as "inductive reasoning" and other forms that we've been discussing as of late. The website lay-out is very simple in it's "table of contents" format, as it makes it very easy to navigate.

I ended up reading through some older concepts and completing the example portions for some of them. I also read through most of the individual links, as I realized I needed to brush up on some of the earlier stuff after trying to attempt some of the examples provided. All in all, this site is exactly what everyone needs to have on hand just in case you need to refresh your memory.

Discussion Question #24: Cause & Effect

The website provided by the professor was pretty helpful in explaining the concept of "causal arguments". Causal arguments are pretty common as usually every act in life has some form of a "cause" and a later "effect", such as being out in the cold (cause) exposed you to illness (effect). The example provided on the website was a pretty interesting one in my opinion. If you had little-to-no information about the case prior to reading it (such as the illegally parked car), there would be many different scenarios that a person could argue.

I "knew" about the cause and effect concept, but I never really actually read up on it. There were several things that were pretty useful that I never really bothered to notice before. Causal arguments basically follow the form of inductive reasoning, except for an important difference. As the website stated, inductive arguments imply that there is no significant difference while causal arguments imply that there is one significant difference. Another would be the rules that causal arguments must follow, such as the cause must precede the effect or you'll run into a fallacy such as post hoc reasoning or reverse causation. The exercises were also pretty helpful in applying the info that I just read to real-life situations.

Discussion Question #23

For the last discussion post of the week, I'm going to focus on refuting arguments by use of an analogy. While the book states that using analogies in a single argument is usually too vague to use as a premise, using an analogy between two arguments is a very powerful way to refute. The book uses a great example by discussing the issue of homosexuality. In it, "Tom" refers to homosexual marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage and there should be an amendment preventing it. "Zoe" then responds with an analogy showing how Britney Spears is also ruining the sanctity of marriage by marrying/divorcing in one-day and that divorce should be outlawed also. Some people, certainly on a subject like this, can be close-minded and/or ignorant at times, but using a method like this will make that close-minded/ignorant individual see both sides of the argument. Using an analogy of one argument to another easily points out the flaws in a persons argument, just like Zoe showed Tom how ridiculous his argument was.