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.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
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".
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".
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
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.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Discussion Question #22: Post Two
For my second discussion post of the week, I'm focusing on "reasoning by criteria". Out of each type of reasoning listed on the professor's blog, I believe this is the one that confused me quite a bit at first. I really can't find much information online besides the link the professor provided. After searching around and viewing multiple examples, I came to a much better understanding of the concept. "Criteria reasoning" basically means that whatever argument or statement we come across, we must define whatever criteria within it to be able to make some form of "right/wrong" judgement. One of the websites I researched talked about how most criteria uses many common morals/values to make it easier to accept certain criteria with minimal questioning, along with future legitimacy in any other argument.
From this website, http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/criteria.htm, we can see where the judgement of "right" and "wrong" based on common values come from. Those three examples give us two versions (one right and one wrong) of each statement to help further understand the concept.
From this website, http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/criteria.htm, we can see where the judgement of "right" and "wrong" based on common values come from. Those three examples give us two versions (one right and one wrong) of each statement to help further understand the concept.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Discussion Question #21
This week, we're studying different forms of reasoning. As the blog post stated, I'll cover each type and give a real world example for each concept.
Reasoning By Analogy: To use an analogy in an argument or any form of reasoning, what you're essentially doing is drawing a comparison between two different subjects. It can be used to further cement your point, or it can be used to make something more understandable if either one of the subjects is unknown to the other person.
Example: The severe crackdown by the DEA on medical marijuana shops in San Jose is like treating dandruff with decapitation.
Sign Reasoning: Sign reasoning deals with the assumption of either an event or some form of symbol is a reliable indicator of another event/symbol/etc. A common expression I read while researching is "judging a book by its cover".
Example: "That guy over there has tattoos and baggy pants. He must be in a gang."
Causal Reasoning: Causal reasoning deals with the establishment between the "cause" and the "effect" of events in succession, where the second event is caused by the first. Usually, it's used to prevent/alter the outcome of something by changing the cause to prevent whatever effects might be present.
Example: Lung cancer and cigarettes. To prevent the proven effects (cancer), people should stop smoking cigarettes (cause).
Reasoning By Criteria: When reasoning by critera, we usually try to imply certain points without directly speaking our minds.
Example:
Joe: "I've been practicing a lot lately. Here, I'll play what I've been working on." *plays*
Band Director: *Cringing* "Well...you're getting better."
Instead of flat out saying "you suck", the band director chooses a much nicer and more encouraging approach to an aspiring musician.
Reasoning By Example: A form of reasoning that uses real-world examples to make a point.
Example: "You really need to study longer. Bob studies a lot longer than you do."
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning focuses on applying past observations/experiences in your present/future arguments or statements.
Example: I have an Econ class that is only on Mondays from 6:30-9:15 every week. Each week, I've left at 6 pm and have gotten there early every single time. This past Monday I ran into heavy traffic. I'll leave earlier next Monday to ensure I don't end up being late to class because of traffic.
Deductive Reasoning: We dealt with deductive reasoning a lot when studying general forms of logical arguments. Deductive reasoning is pretty much deducing from a general statement down to a specific point (like the whole A, B, then A argument).
Example: All college students must take a communications course. Jerry is a college student. Therefore, Jerry has to take a communications course.
Reasoning By Analogy: To use an analogy in an argument or any form of reasoning, what you're essentially doing is drawing a comparison between two different subjects. It can be used to further cement your point, or it can be used to make something more understandable if either one of the subjects is unknown to the other person.
Example: The severe crackdown by the DEA on medical marijuana shops in San Jose is like treating dandruff with decapitation.
Sign Reasoning: Sign reasoning deals with the assumption of either an event or some form of symbol is a reliable indicator of another event/symbol/etc. A common expression I read while researching is "judging a book by its cover".
Example: "That guy over there has tattoos and baggy pants. He must be in a gang."
Causal Reasoning: Causal reasoning deals with the establishment between the "cause" and the "effect" of events in succession, where the second event is caused by the first. Usually, it's used to prevent/alter the outcome of something by changing the cause to prevent whatever effects might be present.
Example: Lung cancer and cigarettes. To prevent the proven effects (cancer), people should stop smoking cigarettes (cause).
Reasoning By Criteria: When reasoning by critera, we usually try to imply certain points without directly speaking our minds.
Example:
Joe: "I've been practicing a lot lately. Here, I'll play what I've been working on." *plays*
Band Director: *Cringing* "Well...you're getting better."
Instead of flat out saying "you suck", the band director chooses a much nicer and more encouraging approach to an aspiring musician.
Reasoning By Example: A form of reasoning that uses real-world examples to make a point.
Example: "You really need to study longer. Bob studies a lot longer than you do."
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning focuses on applying past observations/experiences in your present/future arguments or statements.
Example: I have an Econ class that is only on Mondays from 6:30-9:15 every week. Each week, I've left at 6 pm and have gotten there early every single time. This past Monday I ran into heavy traffic. I'll leave earlier next Monday to ensure I don't end up being late to class because of traffic.
Deductive Reasoning: We dealt with deductive reasoning a lot when studying general forms of logical arguments. Deductive reasoning is pretty much deducing from a general statement down to a specific point (like the whole A, B, then A argument).
Example: All college students must take a communications course. Jerry is a college student. Therefore, Jerry has to take a communications course.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Discussion Question #20: Spite/Debt
For the last discussion of the week, I'm going to focus on "appeal to spite" and "calling in your debts" as they are related to each other.
An appeal to spite, in other words, is to form an argument based on the principal of "two wrongs make a right". It's an immoral way to try to argue, as revenge in any form is looked down upon by many cultures.
For example:
Jerry: Hey Jim, will you help me with this assignment? I'm in danger of failing.
Jim: I'll try to help you out.
Chris: Jim, why'd you help Jerry? He never pays you back and is a mean person. He deserves to fail.
The argument that we can see from this generally would be something like, "Since Jerry is a mean person, he deserves to fail." We can see a motive of "getting even" or "revenge", which are the general signs of an "appeal to spite".
To "call in your debts" is pretty much the exact opposite of an "appeal to spite". According to the book, calling in your debts means, "You should believe or do something if you owe someone a favor" (pg. 193).
For example:
Derek: What are you doing tonight?
Harold: Oh, hanging out with Larry.
Derek: Well you should be hanging out with me instead. I did help you out big time last week.
The argument behind this would be something like, "You should be hanging out with me instead of someone else only because I helped you out last week." The motive behind "calling in your debts" is usually trying to take advantage of guilt.
An appeal to spite, in other words, is to form an argument based on the principal of "two wrongs make a right". It's an immoral way to try to argue, as revenge in any form is looked down upon by many cultures.
For example:
Jerry: Hey Jim, will you help me with this assignment? I'm in danger of failing.
Jim: I'll try to help you out.
Chris: Jim, why'd you help Jerry? He never pays you back and is a mean person. He deserves to fail.
The argument that we can see from this generally would be something like, "Since Jerry is a mean person, he deserves to fail." We can see a motive of "getting even" or "revenge", which are the general signs of an "appeal to spite".
To "call in your debts" is pretty much the exact opposite of an "appeal to spite". According to the book, calling in your debts means, "You should believe or do something if you owe someone a favor" (pg. 193).
For example:
Derek: What are you doing tonight?
Harold: Oh, hanging out with Larry.
Derek: Well you should be hanging out with me instead. I did help you out big time last week.
The argument behind this would be something like, "You should be hanging out with me instead of someone else only because I helped you out last week." The motive behind "calling in your debts" is usually trying to take advantage of guilt.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Discussion Question #19: Page 195
For the second discussion question of the week, I'm choosing to complete objective 3 on page 195. Objective 3 states, "Find an advertisement that uses an appeal to fear. Is it a good argument?"
Using an appeal to fear aspect on any argument is a very effective way of capturing an audience's attention. Many ads utilize this as all humans are susceptible to fear, whether it be an ad for a politician, law enforcement, or some sort of health issue.
I found this Bayer advertisement that is a perfect example of a bad argument that appeals to certain health fears that millions of humans face. Basically, the argument this advertisement is trying to state is, "If you don't take Bayer, you'll have a heart attack like this random father with his kid." It doesn't tell us if this random individual that was quoted had any family history of heart problems or if this person lived an unhealthy lifestyle of bad food/no exercise.
The football and "father-son" moment would instill fear into any father out there who has a child. As humans, all of us remember the past and usually ponder what the future may hold for us. Health issues are usually the main focus when thinking about the future, which is why most advertisements related to health care, a recalled drug, or new advancements in medical technology use an appeal to fear.
Using an appeal to fear aspect on any argument is a very effective way of capturing an audience's attention. Many ads utilize this as all humans are susceptible to fear, whether it be an ad for a politician, law enforcement, or some sort of health issue.
The football and "father-son" moment would instill fear into any father out there who has a child. As humans, all of us remember the past and usually ponder what the future may hold for us. Health issues are usually the main focus when thinking about the future, which is why most advertisements related to health care, a recalled drug, or new advancements in medical technology use an appeal to fear.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Discussion Question #18: Appeal To Emotion
For the first discussion of the week, we're focusing on Chapter 10 which involves the concept of "appealing to emotion". The main purpose of using any of the forms of "appeal to emotion" is to try to take advantage of the emotional weaknesses of others in order to make an argument even more convincing. It may appear to make an argument stronger, but in reality appealing to emotion is a shady trick that results in a very weak/bad argument. Political "attack" ads that we've been seeing for the past few months (the whole Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Brown ads are quite hilarious) are great examples of trying to appeal to voters emotions.
I'm going to use the general "appeal to emotion" aspect because of all the political ads I had to watch during the post-season recently (GIANTS!). As the book says, "An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (pg.191). Besides attack ads that are more directed towards the "appeal to fear" aspect, a lot of the proposition ads/certain candidates focused on the general premise of "Are you mad at so-and-so running our city/state?" or "Don't you feel like you're being taken advantage of by X policy/tax/propositon? If so, vote yes/no on ____". They all focus on the same meaning that if you feel a certain way about a certain political issue, then go out and vote.
I'm going to use the general "appeal to emotion" aspect because of all the political ads I had to watch during the post-season recently (GIANTS!). As the book says, "An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (pg.191). Besides attack ads that are more directed towards the "appeal to fear" aspect, a lot of the proposition ads/certain candidates focused on the general premise of "Are you mad at so-and-so running our city/state?" or "Don't you feel like you're being taken advantage of by X policy/tax/propositon? If so, vote yes/no on ____". They all focus on the same meaning that if you feel a certain way about a certain political issue, then go out and vote.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Discussion Question #18: Refutation
For the last discussion question of the week, I thought I'd focus on the topic of direct and indirect refutations. When I first glanced over this section, I found it a bit confusing for the subject of "indirect refutations".
Whenever you encounter another argument, you must be able to effectively respond to the subject of the argument. As we've already figured out from the book, not every argument is rational, strong, or even logical. To respond to arguments, we must use "refutation". There are two ways, direct and indirect, that we must use to respond to an argument.
Direct Refutation: A direct point-by-point rebuttal to an argument, where we set out to do one of three things:
1) Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.
2) Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.
3) Show that the conclusion is false.
Indirect Refutation: This sort of refutation is a bit more vague. It doesn't focus on a specific aspect of an argument, but it sets out to accomplish the same goal: to prove the argument is false. There's not too much information available online about it, but I found a link where it's used most often in a courtroom to question the general credibility of a witness, without having to repeat the same allegations over and over again.
http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/counterpropaganda-techniques/
Whenever you encounter another argument, you must be able to effectively respond to the subject of the argument. As we've already figured out from the book, not every argument is rational, strong, or even logical. To respond to arguments, we must use "refutation". There are two ways, direct and indirect, that we must use to respond to an argument.
Direct Refutation: A direct point-by-point rebuttal to an argument, where we set out to do one of three things:
1) Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.
2) Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.
3) Show that the conclusion is false.
Indirect Refutation: This sort of refutation is a bit more vague. It doesn't focus on a specific aspect of an argument, but it sets out to accomplish the same goal: to prove the argument is false. There's not too much information available online about it, but I found a link where it's used most often in a courtroom to question the general credibility of a witness, without having to repeat the same allegations over and over again.
http://cannoneerno4.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/counterpropaganda-techniques/
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Discussion Question #17: Group Assignment
The first group assignment was actually an enjoyable experience. At the time, we were in the earlier chapters where we were discussing different types of claims and premises, along with how to properly evaluate an argument. Going into the assignment was kind of weird as none of the meetings were actually in-person. Everything was online and the only time we met was for meetings or for other various side-emails about the group paper. In general, assignment #1 promoted group interaction and a better sense of involvement, as each member was a key part in the paper as a whole.
The meeting process was very effective. Everyone showed up and we all put in our own input of what topic we wanted to focus on. After narrowing it down, we then found various articles and voted to choose the topic. A time-frame was set on when each part should be sent to the main person that was putting the essay together. Everything really went off without a hitch; we all each did our share of the work, sent it in a timely manner, and received a pretty high mark on the assignment. I was assigned with breaking down the evidence used in the article. It was actually a very useful section to work on, as it gave me a better understanding of how different types of evidence are used in certain arguments to further cement the main point. Assignment #1 was really the first assignment I've ever worked as a "group" in an online class as this is my first actual online class I've taken.
The meeting process was very effective. Everyone showed up and we all put in our own input of what topic we wanted to focus on. After narrowing it down, we then found various articles and voted to choose the topic. A time-frame was set on when each part should be sent to the main person that was putting the essay together. Everything really went off without a hitch; we all each did our share of the work, sent it in a timely manner, and received a pretty high mark on the assignment. I was assigned with breaking down the evidence used in the article. It was actually a very useful section to work on, as it gave me a better understanding of how different types of evidence are used in certain arguments to further cement the main point. Assignment #1 was really the first assignment I've ever worked as a "group" in an online class as this is my first actual online class I've taken.
Discussion Question #16: Chapter 8
General Claims:
Chapter 8 discusses the proper use of "general claims", which are claims regarding a broad assertion about a whole or part of something. We can distinguish general claims from each other by looking at a few key words. Some may use the word "all" to refer to "absolutely everything, no exceptions", while some may use the word "some" to refer to "at least one".
There are other indicator words used, such as "only" which describes a specific reasoning method. When "only" is present in a general claim, the easiest way to break it down is to assign a specific code to each part of the claim. For example, the book uses "S" & "P" to label each section. For an only claim, "Only S are P" is meant to be reasonsed as, "All P are S".
For example:
"Only mechanics (S) fix cars (P)". Following the reasoning, we'd see that it means, "Anyone that fixes cars (P) is a mechanic (S)".
Between One and All:
Chapter 8 also discusses generalities using both precise numbers and vague phrases.
When using a precise number, it's easier to see the strength of the argument. For example:
"50% of students will fail Mr. D's Calculus exam. Matt took Mr. D's class. Matt passed the Calculus exam."
This is a weaker argument as there is a 50/50 chance either way of generalizing whether or not Matt passed the Calculus exam. If the percentage or number is very high or very low, such as 97% or 99 people out of 100, the argument becomes much stronger.
When using vague generalities, things become a bit more complicated. We can use a number of different key words or phrases that can be used to specify all or part of a collection without using a number. For example, "All, almost all, some, a lot of, a few, very few" are all key words that vague generalities use.
Vague generalities follow the direct way of reasoning which is:
Almost all S are P
A is S
So A is P
For example:
A lot of students (S) get less than 8 hours of sleep during a school week. (P)
Nicole (A) is a student. (S)
So, Nicole (A) gets less than 8 hours of sleep during a school week. (P)
Chapter 8 discusses the proper use of "general claims", which are claims regarding a broad assertion about a whole or part of something. We can distinguish general claims from each other by looking at a few key words. Some may use the word "all" to refer to "absolutely everything, no exceptions", while some may use the word "some" to refer to "at least one".
There are other indicator words used, such as "only" which describes a specific reasoning method. When "only" is present in a general claim, the easiest way to break it down is to assign a specific code to each part of the claim. For example, the book uses "S" & "P" to label each section. For an only claim, "Only S are P" is meant to be reasonsed as, "All P are S".
For example:
"Only mechanics (S) fix cars (P)". Following the reasoning, we'd see that it means, "Anyone that fixes cars (P) is a mechanic (S)".
Between One and All:
Chapter 8 also discusses generalities using both precise numbers and vague phrases.
When using a precise number, it's easier to see the strength of the argument. For example:
"50% of students will fail Mr. D's Calculus exam. Matt took Mr. D's class. Matt passed the Calculus exam."
This is a weaker argument as there is a 50/50 chance either way of generalizing whether or not Matt passed the Calculus exam. If the percentage or number is very high or very low, such as 97% or 99 people out of 100, the argument becomes much stronger.
When using vague generalities, things become a bit more complicated. We can use a number of different key words or phrases that can be used to specify all or part of a collection without using a number. For example, "All, almost all, some, a lot of, a few, very few" are all key words that vague generalities use.
Vague generalities follow the direct way of reasoning which is:
Almost all S are P
A is S
So A is P
For example:
A lot of students (S) get less than 8 hours of sleep during a school week. (P)
Nicole (A) is a student. (S)
So, Nicole (A) gets less than 8 hours of sleep during a school week. (P)
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Discussion Question #15: Valid/Weak Arguments Using Conditionals
For my last discussion question of the week, I'm going to focus on valid and weak forms of arguments using conditionals. There are several different reasoning structures that the book contains that help in creating and evaluating arguments with conditionals.
In terms of valid arguments, there are the reasoning structures of:
Direct Reasoning: Indirect Reasoning:
If A, then B If A, then B
A Not B
So B So not A
These formats are pretty easy to understand. When looking at an argument, assign the appropriate "A" and "B" labels to the argument and check what format it follows.
Here's a Direct Reasoning example:
(A) If it's raining outside, (B)Johnny will wear a jacket
(A) It's raining outside
(B) So Johnny will wear a jacket
Weak arguments generally follow this format:
Affirming the Consequent: Denying the Antecedent:
If A, then B If A, then B
B Not A
So A So not B
These formats usually are associated with weak arguments because they often resort to "arguing backwards". These formats are similar to the Direct/Indirect way of reasoning with conditionals, but the minute differences make all the difference.
Here's an Affirming the Consequent example:
(A) If it's raining outside, (B) Johnny will wear a jacket
(B) Johnny wore a jacket
(A) So it's raining outside
Instead of proving the "then" part of an "if, then" conditional, weak arguments usually resort to proving the (A) part of the argument as in the example. It's very easy to get these concepts confused, but once you get the formats down for each associated reasoning structure, you'll be perfect at evaluating and writing arguments using conditionals.
In terms of valid arguments, there are the reasoning structures of:
Direct Reasoning: Indirect Reasoning:
If A, then B If A, then B
A Not B
So B So not A
These formats are pretty easy to understand. When looking at an argument, assign the appropriate "A" and "B" labels to the argument and check what format it follows.
Here's a Direct Reasoning example:
(A) If it's raining outside, (B)Johnny will wear a jacket
(A) It's raining outside
(B) So Johnny will wear a jacket
Weak arguments generally follow this format:
Affirming the Consequent: Denying the Antecedent:
If A, then B If A, then B
B Not A
So A So not B
These formats usually are associated with weak arguments because they often resort to "arguing backwards". These formats are similar to the Direct/Indirect way of reasoning with conditionals, but the minute differences make all the difference.
Here's an Affirming the Consequent example:
(A) If it's raining outside, (B) Johnny will wear a jacket
(B) Johnny wore a jacket
(A) So it's raining outside
Instead of proving the "then" part of an "if, then" conditional, weak arguments usually resort to proving the (A) part of the argument as in the example. It's very easy to get these concepts confused, but once you get the formats down for each associated reasoning structure, you'll be perfect at evaluating and writing arguments using conditionals.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Discussion Question #14: Chapter 7
Chapter 7 discusses the concept of "counter-arguments". So far, we've learned how to effectively evaluate claims, premises, and the strength of arguments. Now, we're focusing on how to reason with arguments we might encounter on a day-to-day basis.
Raising Objections:
Arguments are claims that are supposed to convince others. Counter-arguments are a tool listeners of the argument have to point out that an argument is "bad" or "weak". We can do this by "raising objections" to a specific argument.
Raising objections function as a "mini-argument" to the main argument of the other person. When person A is stating his/her claims, an objection can be made by person B against that claim. Person A must now respond to the objection, requiring person B to make another objection or bow out of the argument.
For example:
Person A: "I want to get an older muscle car"
Person B: (Objection) "But you already have a brand new car"
Person A: "Yeah, but muscle cars are faster" (Answer)
Person B: (Objection) "Yeah, but muscle cars also get much less MPG. You'll be spending more money on gas"
Arguments with objections can go on forever, but the main point is that objections are used as a counter-argument to argue the strength of the original argument.
Refuting an Argument:
Refuting an argument is another way of saying "proving an argument to be false". There are many different ways to do this, but the main three ways of refuting an argument are:
1) Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.
2) Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.
3) Show that the conclusion is false.
For example:
"Video games are a waste of time. Video games are often bad influences on youth. People should stop playing video games".
Here's an example of how to refute the above argument:
A) You can point out that how people allocate their time is subjective. One person might enjoy video games while another might enjoy reading a book. There are a lot of jobs out there that are focused on creating, designing, and playing video games. Are those jobs a "waste of time too"?
You can refute an argument in a number of different ways, but they all share the same concept of effectively responding to an argument.
Raising Objections:
Arguments are claims that are supposed to convince others. Counter-arguments are a tool listeners of the argument have to point out that an argument is "bad" or "weak". We can do this by "raising objections" to a specific argument.
Raising objections function as a "mini-argument" to the main argument of the other person. When person A is stating his/her claims, an objection can be made by person B against that claim. Person A must now respond to the objection, requiring person B to make another objection or bow out of the argument.
For example:
Person A: "I want to get an older muscle car"
Person B: (Objection) "But you already have a brand new car"
Person A: "Yeah, but muscle cars are faster" (Answer)
Person B: (Objection) "Yeah, but muscle cars also get much less MPG. You'll be spending more money on gas"
Arguments with objections can go on forever, but the main point is that objections are used as a counter-argument to argue the strength of the original argument.
Refuting an Argument:
Refuting an argument is another way of saying "proving an argument to be false". There are many different ways to do this, but the main three ways of refuting an argument are:
1) Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.
2) Show that the argument isn't valid or strong.
3) Show that the conclusion is false.
For example:
"Video games are a waste of time. Video games are often bad influences on youth. People should stop playing video games".
Here's an example of how to refute the above argument:
A) You can point out that how people allocate their time is subjective. One person might enjoy video games while another might enjoy reading a book. There are a lot of jobs out there that are focused on creating, designing, and playing video games. Are those jobs a "waste of time too"?
You can refute an argument in a number of different ways, but they all share the same concept of effectively responding to an argument.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Discussion Question #13: Chapter 6
Chapter 6 is full of important concepts such as compound claims, conditional claims, false dilemmas, and contradictions of specific claims. For the first discussion question this week, I'm going to focus on compound "or/"and" claims along with their contradictions, as well as talking about conditionals.
A compound claim is viewed as a single claim, but it's made up of more than one individual claim. They are separated by a specific indicator word, such as "or" along with "and".
For example:
"Jerry will go to the football game or go to lunch with his friends".
The two claims within this compound claim are "Jerry will go to the football game" and "Jerry will go to lunch with his friends". These invidivual claims are known as "alternatives"; when combined these form a compound claim.
Contradictory of a claim: Contradictions of specific claims, such as an "or" claim, are pretty simple. The contradiction is simply just the opposite of the original claim. For example, if we're using the reasoning of an "or" claim which is "A or B", then the contradictory of that claim is "not A and not B".
"Or" claim: Little Johnny can't stay home alone, or else he needs a baby-sitter.
Contradictory "or" claim: Little Johnny can stay home alone, and he does not need a baby-sitter.
Conditionals at first glance look to be tricky, but they're easy to understand. A conditional claim is a claim that can be rewritten using an "if, then" format that still retains the original claim. When broken down in the A/B format, we can see the line of reasoning of "If A, then B", where A is the antecendent and B is the consequent of the claim.
For example:
Your parent might say, "If you pass your drivers test, I'll buy you a car".
Just like the example in the book about the professor, conditionals only give a conditional promise for the fulfillment of the claim. If the requirement (the antecedent) is not reached, then the "promise" (the consequent) isn't given. This conditional of the parent example is giving the claim that if you do well and pass your drivers test, you'll get a car. However, if you fail your drivers test, you will not get a car.
A compound claim is viewed as a single claim, but it's made up of more than one individual claim. They are separated by a specific indicator word, such as "or" along with "and".
For example:
"Jerry will go to the football game or go to lunch with his friends".
The two claims within this compound claim are "Jerry will go to the football game" and "Jerry will go to lunch with his friends". These invidivual claims are known as "alternatives"; when combined these form a compound claim.
Contradictory of a claim: Contradictions of specific claims, such as an "or" claim, are pretty simple. The contradiction is simply just the opposite of the original claim. For example, if we're using the reasoning of an "or" claim which is "A or B", then the contradictory of that claim is "not A and not B".
"Or" claim: Little Johnny can't stay home alone, or else he needs a baby-sitter.
Contradictory "or" claim: Little Johnny can stay home alone, and he does not need a baby-sitter.
Conditionals at first glance look to be tricky, but they're easy to understand. A conditional claim is a claim that can be rewritten using an "if, then" format that still retains the original claim. When broken down in the A/B format, we can see the line of reasoning of "If A, then B", where A is the antecendent and B is the consequent of the claim.
For example:
Your parent might say, "If you pass your drivers test, I'll buy you a car".
Just like the example in the book about the professor, conditionals only give a conditional promise for the fulfillment of the claim. If the requirement (the antecedent) is not reached, then the "promise" (the consequent) isn't given. This conditional of the parent example is giving the claim that if you do well and pass your drivers test, you'll get a car. However, if you fail your drivers test, you will not get a car.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Discussion Question #12: Criteria for Accepting or Rejecting Claims
When evaluating an argument we have several ways to decide whether we should accept or reject a claim. First, the source of the claim must be identified and evaluated in itself. A claim from a reliable best friend you've known for years would certainly hold more weight to you than if a random stranger told you something. We're more likely to accept a claim from a known friend whom we trust.
Media outlets are also a tricky source to evaluate, as a news station isn't just a single person, it's many different people reporting at different times. When judging a source from a media outlet or a news station on television, it's always important to look at their history of past claims. Pay close attention to any political bias that you'd find between Fox News and CNN for example. We can only accept a claim from a media outlet that has a reliable history and isn't biased.
Our best and most reliable source of information comes from our own personal experience. If we've heard a claim, we can most likely evaluate it based purely on what we've experienced in the past. By judging claims based on personal experience, we can use the criteria below:
-Accept a claim if we know it is true from our own experience.
-Reject a claim if we know it is false from our own experience.
(Exceptions)
-Good reason to doubt our memory/perception.
-The claim contradicts other experiences of ours, and there is a good argument against the claim.
For example, if the claim is "studying leads to better grades", we can accept this claim as we've all studied and seen the benefits studying brings to class performance. If the claim was "studying doesn't have any benefits", I'm sure all of us would reject this claim as it contradicts our own personal experiences that we know to be true.
The exceptions in the list may apply to a personal experience that happened too long ago for you to remember accurately, or if you were in "another state of mind". If there does happen to be a claim that contradicts our own experiences and there is good argument against that claim, we also must make an exception.
If we don't have good reason to either accept or reject a claim, then we must "suspend judgement" on evaluating that claim until we gain enough knowledge to make a logical decision.
Media outlets are also a tricky source to evaluate, as a news station isn't just a single person, it's many different people reporting at different times. When judging a source from a media outlet or a news station on television, it's always important to look at their history of past claims. Pay close attention to any political bias that you'd find between Fox News and CNN for example. We can only accept a claim from a media outlet that has a reliable history and isn't biased.
Our best and most reliable source of information comes from our own personal experience. If we've heard a claim, we can most likely evaluate it based purely on what we've experienced in the past. By judging claims based on personal experience, we can use the criteria below:
-Accept a claim if we know it is true from our own experience.
-Reject a claim if we know it is false from our own experience.
(Exceptions)
-Good reason to doubt our memory/perception.
-The claim contradicts other experiences of ours, and there is a good argument against the claim.
For example, if the claim is "studying leads to better grades", we can accept this claim as we've all studied and seen the benefits studying brings to class performance. If the claim was "studying doesn't have any benefits", I'm sure all of us would reject this claim as it contradicts our own personal experiences that we know to be true.
The exceptions in the list may apply to a personal experience that happened too long ago for you to remember accurately, or if you were in "another state of mind". If there does happen to be a claim that contradicts our own experiences and there is good argument against that claim, we also must make an exception.
If we don't have good reason to either accept or reject a claim, then we must "suspend judgement" on evaluating that claim until we gain enough knowledge to make a logical decision.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Discussion Question #11: Advertisements
Although section C is only a few pages long, it gives the most important advice anyone could ever tell you: don't ever trust the internet unless you have a legitimate reason to. With sites like Wikipedia, personal blogs, and citizen created web domains, absolutely everyone and their grandmothers can post information on the internet. With programs such as Photoshop available on the mass market, individuals are able to create ridiculous images or falsified emails, reports, and comments that they can post on any site anywhere. As the book used for an example, a made-up institution website published a copy of the "study" of politician IQ's and several newspapers actually took it as a fact. Always browse the internet with the presumption that anything ridiculous you see is probably fake, unless you have proof or good reason to believe something is true.
In regards to the advertisement section, I chose the following ad:
I'm sure all of us have seen Axe, Old Spice, and Tag body spray commercials. They all focus on the same concept of the usually outright stated argument that if you use any of these specific body sprays, you'll attract the ladies. According to section A of Chapter 5, we can either 1) Accept the claims as true, 2) Reject the claims as false, or 3) Suspend judgement.
We can use section B to logically look at the ad and determine if we we accept these claims or not. It's not really a reliable source to simply trust the ad that it'll work, as each company is biased and trying to make you purchase their product. Personal experience is really the only way to judge claims like these. If someone noted that you "smelled nice" or something to that effect, you'd be more likely to accept the claims as true, even though the body spray isn't the only factor in attraction. If odor was the only factor in "attracting the ladies", this argument would be much better. However, smelling nice is only really a bonus. Much more goes into attraction, so the claim is misguided.
In regards to the advertisement section, I chose the following ad:
We can use section B to logically look at the ad and determine if we we accept these claims or not. It's not really a reliable source to simply trust the ad that it'll work, as each company is biased and trying to make you purchase their product. Personal experience is really the only way to judge claims like these. If someone noted that you "smelled nice" or something to that effect, you'd be more likely to accept the claims as true, even though the body spray isn't the only factor in attraction. If odor was the only factor in "attracting the ladies", this argument would be much better. However, smelling nice is only really a bonus. Much more goes into attraction, so the claim is misguided.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Discussion Question #10: Repairing Arguments
Resuming with discussion questions, this week we're focusing on "Repairing Arguments". As we encounter arguments on a day-to-day basis, all of us eventually are exposed to arguments that are "in need of repair".
The Epstein book gives us two very easy to follow guides on the subject of repairing arguments. It's sometimes hard to distinguish whether or not an argument is defective, but understanding the Principal of Rational Discussion is key in singling out several reasons we might suspect an argument to be defective. If we feel, for example. that an argument needs to be more specific for the other person to understand a certain topic, the Principal of Rational Discussion cancels that out as we must assume that both individuals know the subject that's being argued. We also must assume that an individual is able/willing to reason rationally and is not lying.
The Concept of Repairing Arguments gives us three guidelines that must be satisfied if we evaluate an argument and find that it must be repaired. A premise or conclusion that is added to a defective argument must satisfy the following:
1) The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2) The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3) The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.
Here's an example of a defective argument:
"Jim is an straight-A student. So, Jim's GPA declined last semester."
This argument doesn't really follow anything as it tells us that Jim is an intelligent student, but doesn't tell us why Jim's GPA declined. We need to add a few premises to make it more specific.
"Jim is a straight-A student. Jim recently got a full-time job half a year ago. Because of this, Jim can't devote as much time to studying as before to mantain his 4.0. So, Jim's GPA declined last semester."
According to the Concept of Repairing Arguments, it satisfies the first test as it makes the argument stronger/valid. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion can't be false. The job and the lack of studying account for Jim's GPA decline (1). These premises are also plausible to another person (2) as they can relate to trying to juggle a job with schooling. It's very tough. In reference to #3, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. A full-time job is usually ~30 hours a week, meaning he has very little time outside of class and work to study. Because of this, he can't study as much as he needs to in order to mantain his 4.0 GPA.
The Epstein book gives us two very easy to follow guides on the subject of repairing arguments. It's sometimes hard to distinguish whether or not an argument is defective, but understanding the Principal of Rational Discussion is key in singling out several reasons we might suspect an argument to be defective. If we feel, for example. that an argument needs to be more specific for the other person to understand a certain topic, the Principal of Rational Discussion cancels that out as we must assume that both individuals know the subject that's being argued. We also must assume that an individual is able/willing to reason rationally and is not lying.
The Concept of Repairing Arguments gives us three guidelines that must be satisfied if we evaluate an argument and find that it must be repaired. A premise or conclusion that is added to a defective argument must satisfy the following:
1) The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2) The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3) The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.
Here's an example of a defective argument:
"Jim is an straight-A student. So, Jim's GPA declined last semester."
This argument doesn't really follow anything as it tells us that Jim is an intelligent student, but doesn't tell us why Jim's GPA declined. We need to add a few premises to make it more specific.
"Jim is a straight-A student. Jim recently got a full-time job half a year ago. Because of this, Jim can't devote as much time to studying as before to mantain his 4.0. So, Jim's GPA declined last semester."
According to the Concept of Repairing Arguments, it satisfies the first test as it makes the argument stronger/valid. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion can't be false. The job and the lack of studying account for Jim's GPA decline (1). These premises are also plausible to another person (2) as they can relate to trying to juggle a job with schooling. It's very tough. In reference to #3, the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. A full-time job is usually ~30 hours a week, meaning he has very little time outside of class and work to study. Because of this, he can't study as much as he needs to in order to mantain his 4.0 GPA.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Discussion Question #9: Section F
In the Epstein book on page 203, section F gives great advice when trying to debate against anyone that makes fallacies or violates the Principle of Rational Discussion.
If an argument is legitimately bad in a way that there's no point in trying to fix it, then don't bother wasting your time. Some people aren't educated on the subject of arguing correctly, so they'll unknowingly make mistakes like the ones discussed in Chapter 11. Instead of pointing out they're "stupid" or "don't know what they're talking about", try approaching them on a softer approach and try to show them what's wrong with their argument. The point of arguing is to convince another, not to make another person feel terrible by bringing either emotions into the argument, or by ridiculing the other person.
Back in high school, we had to debate several times on various political issues such as off-shore drilling and the budget crisis back in 2009. However, no one taught any of us how to effectively "debate" and "argue". People would get up and when they felt "cornered" by another person's argument, would try shifting the burden of proof, or misrepresenting the others argument. It went pretty terrible and there were only a few people who actually got the concept of a debate.
Always remember that arguments need to be bound to logic only. When emotions are brought in, arguments get off-topic and fallacies will be committed. The point of arguing is to convey your point on a subject that is backed by sufficient evidence. If you're arguing with someone, try not calling their arguments stupid or dumb. You should instead try calmly pointing out what's wrong with their argument and asking them to fix it by filling in the blanks. However, there is always someone out there that is just arguing a certain issue with ridiculous claims for the sole reason of annoying others, so evaluate what arguments are worth your time trying to fix.
If an argument is legitimately bad in a way that there's no point in trying to fix it, then don't bother wasting your time. Some people aren't educated on the subject of arguing correctly, so they'll unknowingly make mistakes like the ones discussed in Chapter 11. Instead of pointing out they're "stupid" or "don't know what they're talking about", try approaching them on a softer approach and try to show them what's wrong with their argument. The point of arguing is to convince another, not to make another person feel terrible by bringing either emotions into the argument, or by ridiculing the other person.
Back in high school, we had to debate several times on various political issues such as off-shore drilling and the budget crisis back in 2009. However, no one taught any of us how to effectively "debate" and "argue". People would get up and when they felt "cornered" by another person's argument, would try shifting the burden of proof, or misrepresenting the others argument. It went pretty terrible and there were only a few people who actually got the concept of a debate.
Always remember that arguments need to be bound to logic only. When emotions are brought in, arguments get off-topic and fallacies will be committed. The point of arguing is to convey your point on a subject that is backed by sufficient evidence. If you're arguing with someone, try not calling their arguments stupid or dumb. You should instead try calmly pointing out what's wrong with their argument and asking them to fix it by filling in the blanks. However, there is always someone out there that is just arguing a certain issue with ridiculous claims for the sole reason of annoying others, so evaluate what arguments are worth your time trying to fix.
Discussion Question #8: Content Fallacies
On page 201, we're given a list of common content fallacies that we may encounter. I'm choosing to write about the "Phony Refutation" fallacy as I've heard an argument dealing with it quite recently.
The fallacy itself deals with trying to void another person's argument because of certain actions or claims he/she has made in the past.
An everyday situation example would be something like:
Person A: "You really shouldn't start smoking cigarettes."
Person B: "Who are you to say anything? You smoke all the time."
We can see an inconsistency between the advice and the actions of Person B, but you need to look beyond the inconsistency and at the circumstances. Person B could have severe health problems caused by smoking and is terribly addicted to cigarettes. Person B is giving legitimate advice to Person A, but instead Person A shrugs it off due to the fact that they perceive it as hypocritical, when really Person B is speaking from experience.
I've also heard this between several friends of mine. One particular friend, we'll call him "Bob", was in favor of legalizing cannabis on the upcoming November ballot, citing the evidence that tax revenue it would generate would greatly benefit California. Several of my other friends, who are strongly close-minded and won't even consider any rational thought outside of their own personal beliefs, said his argument was "stupid" because "Bob" smokes marijuana fairly often and "should have no say in it due to bias". They tried saying "Bob" only wanted to legalize cannabis just so he could smoke more, not even taking into account his actual argument which focused on legitimate reasons such as the tax revenue it would generate for the state, the prison space it would clear up, and the money it would save taxpayers from enforcing marijuana laws that aren't working.
The fallacy itself deals with trying to void another person's argument because of certain actions or claims he/she has made in the past.
An everyday situation example would be something like:
Person A: "You really shouldn't start smoking cigarettes."
Person B: "Who are you to say anything? You smoke all the time."
We can see an inconsistency between the advice and the actions of Person B, but you need to look beyond the inconsistency and at the circumstances. Person B could have severe health problems caused by smoking and is terribly addicted to cigarettes. Person B is giving legitimate advice to Person A, but instead Person A shrugs it off due to the fact that they perceive it as hypocritical, when really Person B is speaking from experience.
I've also heard this between several friends of mine. One particular friend, we'll call him "Bob", was in favor of legalizing cannabis on the upcoming November ballot, citing the evidence that tax revenue it would generate would greatly benefit California. Several of my other friends, who are strongly close-minded and won't even consider any rational thought outside of their own personal beliefs, said his argument was "stupid" because "Bob" smokes marijuana fairly often and "should have no say in it due to bias". They tried saying "Bob" only wanted to legalize cannabis just so he could smoke more, not even taking into account his actual argument which focused on legitimate reasons such as the tax revenue it would generate for the state, the prison space it would clear up, and the money it would save taxpayers from enforcing marijuana laws that aren't working.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Discussion Question #7: Page 225
For the first discussion question, I'm choosing to write about Exercise #1 from page 225.
1) My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. People do not like living next door to such a mess. He never drives any of them. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Argument? Yes, there is an argument. This individual is arguing that their neighbor needs to get rid of cars parked in his yard.
Conclusion: His old cars are bad for the neighborhood as they decrease property values.
Additional Premises Needed? Several premises need to be added and made clearer in this argument. The individual should include certain laws within the area that focus on hazardous waste (abundances of oil), parking multiple cars in a yard, and the options neighbors have to file a complaint to the city.
Identify any subargument: I wouldn't really label anything as a "subargument" as I would irrelevant. This argument isn't very specific and it makes observations, instead of giving factual evidence as to why their neighbor shouldn't be allowed to have their cars all over their yard. "He never drives them" and "People don't like the look" don't really support the argument as well as something like "Dormant, old cars possess several health risks to the environment due to rust, leaking battery acid, and oil" would.
Good argument? This argument isn't a very good argument as I've stated previously. It's not very specific, it doesn't really have a clear point, and is generally too wordy. This argument needs to be rewritten with a better format that flows from point to point. For example:
"A city ordinance prevents the parking/storage of cars in yards. Dormant, old cars possess several health risks to the environment due to rust, leaking battery acid, and oil. Leaving them strewn about a yard causes the surrounding plant life, such as grass, to die. Unsightly lawns and yards have been proven to bring down property values for the whole neighborhood. Therefore, our neighbor is required to remove his old cars from his yard."
This was good practice in breaking down and analyzing each section of an argument. The more you do something, the easier it becomes. Doing simple exercises like these and breaking each part down will make you that much better at analyzing any arguments you might encounter on a daily basis.
1) My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. People do not like living next door to such a mess. He never drives any of them. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Argument? Yes, there is an argument. This individual is arguing that their neighbor needs to get rid of cars parked in his yard.
Conclusion: His old cars are bad for the neighborhood as they decrease property values.
Additional Premises Needed? Several premises need to be added and made clearer in this argument. The individual should include certain laws within the area that focus on hazardous waste (abundances of oil), parking multiple cars in a yard, and the options neighbors have to file a complaint to the city.
Identify any subargument: I wouldn't really label anything as a "subargument" as I would irrelevant. This argument isn't very specific and it makes observations, instead of giving factual evidence as to why their neighbor shouldn't be allowed to have their cars all over their yard. "He never drives them" and "People don't like the look" don't really support the argument as well as something like "Dormant, old cars possess several health risks to the environment due to rust, leaking battery acid, and oil" would.
Good argument? This argument isn't a very good argument as I've stated previously. It's not very specific, it doesn't really have a clear point, and is generally too wordy. This argument needs to be rewritten with a better format that flows from point to point. For example:
"A city ordinance prevents the parking/storage of cars in yards. Dormant, old cars possess several health risks to the environment due to rust, leaking battery acid, and oil. Leaving them strewn about a yard causes the surrounding plant life, such as grass, to die. Unsightly lawns and yards have been proven to bring down property values for the whole neighborhood. Therefore, our neighbor is required to remove his old cars from his yard."
This was good practice in breaking down and analyzing each section of an argument. The more you do something, the easier it becomes. Doing simple exercises like these and breaking each part down will make you that much better at analyzing any arguments you might encounter on a daily basis.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Discussion Question #6: Conclusion Follows From the Premises
For my last discussion question, I decided to focus on a very important concept that can make or break an argument. The main goal of creating an argument is to give the listener "good reason to believe" what you're arguing for. However, you must follow the concepts that were discussed in Chapter 3 or your argument won't hold much weight and will be easily countered.
The concept of "The Conclusion Follows From the Premises" is a pretty basic one, but it's really the foundation of all good arguments. When you break it down, it stresses the point of making sure your arguments have continuity between the premises and the conclusion. If there isn't any consistency whatsoever and the premises have no relation to the conclusion, then your argument won't make any sense. Arguments like these are easy to spot and avoid, but it's always a good idea to double-check to make sure everything flows and there is support for your conclusion.
For example:
Joe likes football.
So, Joe can't stand onions.
Even at a short glance, it's obvious this argument doesn't make any sense. The premise and the conclusion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
The concept of "The Conclusion Follows From the Premises" is a pretty basic one, but it's really the foundation of all good arguments. When you break it down, it stresses the point of making sure your arguments have continuity between the premises and the conclusion. If there isn't any consistency whatsoever and the premises have no relation to the conclusion, then your argument won't make any sense. Arguments like these are easy to spot and avoid, but it's always a good idea to double-check to make sure everything flows and there is support for your conclusion.
For example:
Joe likes football.
So, Joe can't stand onions.
Even at a short glance, it's obvious this argument doesn't make any sense. The premise and the conclusion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Discussion Question #5: Strong vs. Valid Arguments
We can classify an argument as either "valid" or "invalid". There's really nothing in between the two categories. It's either "this or that". However, when we figure out it's an invalid argument, we can classify it even further by determining how strong or weak the argument is.
The easiest way to determine the validity of an argument is to check the possibilities. If it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time, it's a valid argument.
For example:
A "good" baseball team has a win/loss record over .500.
The San Francisco Giants have a win/loss record of .558.
The San Francisco Giants are a good baseball team.
This is a valid argument because there's no possible way the conclusion can be false when both premises are true.
When determining how strong an argument is, the main thing to look at is how specific the premises are. A "weak" argument has a good possibility of the premises being true and the conclusion being false. A "strong" argument has some possibility, but it's extremely unlikely.
For example:
Animal allergies can cause watery eyes and nasal congestion.
Mary has experienced these symptoms around dogs.
Mary is only allergic to dogs.
There are several possibilities for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The time Mary has experienced these symptoms around dogs, there could have been cats around also. Nothing in the first premise is specific to dog allergies either, those symptoms are caused by any allergy. Mary could be allergic to grass or many other features of parks, which could be the only place Mary ever runs into dogs. There are too many possibilities for the conclusion to be false and the premises be true. This is a weak argument.
A stronger version of that argument would be:
Mary experiences watery eyes/sneezing when at a friends house who owns a dog.
Mary otherwise doesn't have allergic reactions at her other friends houses, including her own.
Mary is allergic to dogs.
This is a stronger argument as it's more specific. The more specific an argument is, the more the possibilities you rule out of the premises being true and the conclusion being false. There's still the possibility that Mary is allergic to maybe a certain perfume or certain carpet shampoos her dog-owner friend owns, but it's unlikely.
The easiest way to determine the validity of an argument is to check the possibilities. If it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false at the same time, it's a valid argument.
For example:
A "good" baseball team has a win/loss record over .500.
The San Francisco Giants have a win/loss record of .558.
The San Francisco Giants are a good baseball team.
This is a valid argument because there's no possible way the conclusion can be false when both premises are true.
When determining how strong an argument is, the main thing to look at is how specific the premises are. A "weak" argument has a good possibility of the premises being true and the conclusion being false. A "strong" argument has some possibility, but it's extremely unlikely.
For example:
Animal allergies can cause watery eyes and nasal congestion.
Mary has experienced these symptoms around dogs.
Mary is only allergic to dogs.
There are several possibilities for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The time Mary has experienced these symptoms around dogs, there could have been cats around also. Nothing in the first premise is specific to dog allergies either, those symptoms are caused by any allergy. Mary could be allergic to grass or many other features of parks, which could be the only place Mary ever runs into dogs. There are too many possibilities for the conclusion to be false and the premises be true. This is a weak argument.
A stronger version of that argument would be:
Mary experiences watery eyes/sneezing when at a friends house who owns a dog.
Mary otherwise doesn't have allergic reactions at her other friends houses, including her own.
Mary is allergic to dogs.
This is a stronger argument as it's more specific. The more specific an argument is, the more the possibilities you rule out of the premises being true and the conclusion being false. There's still the possibility that Mary is allergic to maybe a certain perfume or certain carpet shampoos her dog-owner friend owns, but it's unlikely.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Discussion Question #4: Tests for an Argument
Section C of Chapter 3 discusses how we can logically distinguish an argument as either "valid" or "invalid", as well as identifying arguments as either a "strong" argument or a "weak" argument. The book gives us three guidelines that an argument must pass in order to be a good argument.
These guidelines are:
1) The premises are plausible.
2) The premises are more plausible than the conclusion.
3) The argument is valid or strong.
Here's a hypothetical argument:
Bobby is a teenager.
Every teenager plays video games.
Therefore, Bobby plays video games.
First off, this argument is valid (test #3). Like the book says, there's no possible way the premises can be true and the conclusion be false. However, it's not a strong argument as the second premise is false.
*Note: An argument only has to pass one of the tests to be a good argument. As the book states, they are independent from each other.
I could go on to test the argument using the other two guidelines, but I don't necessarily need to. In reference to #1) The first premise is plausible yes, but the second isn't. In reference to #2) it's more plausible for a teenager "Bobby" to play video games than it is for EVERY teenager out there to play video games. This argument is valid, but it is a bad argument.
When we evaluate arguments, we look at several things. We look to make sure the premises are plausible, we look to make sure the premises and the conclusion make sense, and we look at any possibilites for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The more specific the argument is, the better chance you have to convince someone.
For example:
Stephen rides motorcross. Stephen hurt his arm. Stephen hurt his arm dirt biking.
This argument isn't specific at all. It's not strong as it's entirely possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion be false. His arm could have been injured skateboarding or doing another activity.
The preferred argument would be:
Stephen crashed while riding his dirt bike.
Stephen's arm only started hurting after his dirt bike crash.
Therefore, Stephen hurt his arm dirt biking.
This argument makes it a strong and valid argument as there's no possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. It's also a strong argument as being as specific as possible rules out pretty much all of the ways the premises can be true and the conclusion can be false.
These guidelines are:
1) The premises are plausible.
2) The premises are more plausible than the conclusion.
3) The argument is valid or strong.
Here's a hypothetical argument:
Bobby is a teenager.
Every teenager plays video games.
Therefore, Bobby plays video games.
First off, this argument is valid (test #3). Like the book says, there's no possible way the premises can be true and the conclusion be false. However, it's not a strong argument as the second premise is false.
*Note: An argument only has to pass one of the tests to be a good argument. As the book states, they are independent from each other.
I could go on to test the argument using the other two guidelines, but I don't necessarily need to. In reference to #1) The first premise is plausible yes, but the second isn't. In reference to #2) it's more plausible for a teenager "Bobby" to play video games than it is for EVERY teenager out there to play video games. This argument is valid, but it is a bad argument.
When we evaluate arguments, we look at several things. We look to make sure the premises are plausible, we look to make sure the premises and the conclusion make sense, and we look at any possibilites for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. The more specific the argument is, the better chance you have to convince someone.
For example:
Stephen rides motorcross. Stephen hurt his arm. Stephen hurt his arm dirt biking.
This argument isn't specific at all. It's not strong as it's entirely possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion be false. His arm could have been injured skateboarding or doing another activity.
The preferred argument would be:
Stephen crashed while riding his dirt bike.
Stephen's arm only started hurting after his dirt bike crash.
Therefore, Stephen hurt his arm dirt biking.
This argument makes it a strong and valid argument as there's no possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. It's also a strong argument as being as specific as possible rules out pretty much all of the ways the premises can be true and the conclusion can be false.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Discussion Question #3: Section C
From the Epstein reading that was assigned this week, I chose to focus on section C. Much like the other pair of claims discussed in Chapter 2 (subjective/objective), the book also describes the differences between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" claims. A "descriptive" claim focuses more on describing what something is (a person, a concept, a situation, etc), while a "prescriptive" claim describes what something should be. The main detail when trying to label a claim as either descriptive or prescriptive is to look at the wording of the statement. If any words such as "should", "ought", or "shouldn't" are present, then it's a prescriptive claim as it's telling us what we should or shouldn't do.
Value judgment plays a big role in helping us distinguish a descriptive claim from a prescriptive claim. A "value judgment" is any word or action we associate with as either being "right" or "wrong". This isn't factual 100% of the time, but anytime we make a judgment in a statement about a certain topic, it's meant as a prescriptive claim. As Epstein says, "What appears to be a moral claim or value judgment, though, is often too vague to be a claim" (pg. 24). By this we see that by making a value judgment of a certain topic, we must be specific about what exactly we feel should/shouldn't be done. Otherwise, we leave the claim too vague to effectively debate.
Epstein, Richard L., and Carolyn Kernberger. Critical Thinking, Third Edition. 3rd ed. California: Wadsworth, 2006. P.24. Print.
Value judgment plays a big role in helping us distinguish a descriptive claim from a prescriptive claim. A "value judgment" is any word or action we associate with as either being "right" or "wrong". This isn't factual 100% of the time, but anytime we make a judgment in a statement about a certain topic, it's meant as a prescriptive claim. As Epstein says, "What appears to be a moral claim or value judgment, though, is often too vague to be a claim" (pg. 24). By this we see that by making a value judgment of a certain topic, we must be specific about what exactly we feel should/shouldn't be done. Otherwise, we leave the claim too vague to effectively debate.
Epstein, Richard L., and Carolyn Kernberger. Critical Thinking, Third Edition. 3rd ed. California: Wadsworth, 2006. P.24. Print.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Discussion Question #2: Vague/Ambiguous
I recently watched the movie "Shutter Island", a psychological thriller directed by Martin Scorsese. I enjoyed its novel counterpart and was certainly pleased with seeing the imagery I had while reading the book come to life on the big screen. It's a very thought-provoking story about a man with very severe psychological issues due to his estranged wife murdering their children. He then kills his wife after realizing there is something severely wrong with her. Instead of coming to terms with what happened, he creates an entire fantasy scenario that constantly replays in his mind. In it, he is a detective trying to find a missing woman at a very secure mental prison on a remote island. In reality, he's actually a patient there.
When the doctors are finally able to break through to Teddy, they await to see if he "relapsed" back into his fantasy world. If he had, he would be lobotomized. The ending scene of the movie is of Teddy sitting next to Dr. Sheehan. He turns to the doctor and refers to him as "Chuck", which signaled to the other doctors he had relapsed into his fantasy world. However, the last line of the movie is very ambiguous and leaves much up to the imagination. Knowing he will be lobotomized, Teddy stands up and says, "Chuck, is it better to live as a monster or to die a good man?". It's an ambiguous statement as it leaves us questioning if he actually relapsed or not. In my opinion he didn't relapse and instead faked returning to his fantasy world not only out of fear of relapsing himself, but due to not being able to live with what had happened. Choosing the lobotomy would make him forget about everything and help him live out the rest of his life in peace.
When the doctors are finally able to break through to Teddy, they await to see if he "relapsed" back into his fantasy world. If he had, he would be lobotomized. The ending scene of the movie is of Teddy sitting next to Dr. Sheehan. He turns to the doctor and refers to him as "Chuck", which signaled to the other doctors he had relapsed into his fantasy world. However, the last line of the movie is very ambiguous and leaves much up to the imagination. Knowing he will be lobotomized, Teddy stands up and says, "Chuck, is it better to live as a monster or to die a good man?". It's an ambiguous statement as it leaves us questioning if he actually relapsed or not. In my opinion he didn't relapse and instead faked returning to his fantasy world not only out of fear of relapsing himself, but due to not being able to live with what had happened. Choosing the lobotomy would make him forget about everything and help him live out the rest of his life in peace.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Discussion Question #1: Objective/Subjective Claims
Before the baseball season began, a friend and I got into several debates about who was the better bay area team. He is a A's fan and I'm a Giants fan. Before the season started, we could only make subjective claims solely based off our of personal bias to a baseball team. We didn't have any win/loss records to argue over, combined ERA of either pitching staffs, or any other statistic that helped us prove our points. We decided that we would pick up where we left off as the season wore on. As each team accumulated wins/losses and their personal stars, we had factual information that both of us could now use. At the time we debated (Early August), the Giants had just come off of an incredible July where they went 21-7. The Giants were 17 games over .500, while the A's were hovering just above the .500 line (for those not involved with baseball, a win/loss record that is the same is a .500 ball-club. Ex. a "65-65" record is a .500 record). The A's have a potential AL Cy Young winner in Trevor Cahill, but the Giants have the better record and potential Rookie of the Year winner in Buster Posey.
An example of a "subjective" claim I've recently heard is a friend debating over the existence of God. He's a heavily devoted Christian that decides to use Facebook as a way to force his beliefs on others. I don't partae in his debates as religion arguments get very heated, but it all comes down to what your personal belief is, obviously leading to bias. As it stands now, there isn't factual evidence proving nor disproving the existence of a god. Any claim made otherwise is subjective.
An example of a "subjective" claim I've recently heard is a friend debating over the existence of God. He's a heavily devoted Christian that decides to use Facebook as a way to force his beliefs on others. I don't partae in his debates as religion arguments get very heated, but it all comes down to what your personal belief is, obviously leading to bias. As it stands now, there isn't factual evidence proving nor disproving the existence of a god. Any claim made otherwise is subjective.
Introductory Post
Hey, I'm Stephen.
I'm a sophomore currently at SJSU. I started off as an Industrial Engineer, but switched my major to Business-Management Information Systems last year. This is my second online class I will be taking and had overall a good experience with my last class (Music Appreciation). My communication experience is mostly from being involved with my music program at my high school. I was section leader and had to oversee 50+ other students during various drill rehearsals and music run throughs. I took Comm 20 last semester and thoroughly enjoyed that class.
A little bit about myself..I'm a huge SF Giants fan, I'm always at Metcalf or Hollister every weekend riding my dirt bike, and I'm always listening or playing music. My great-grandfather taught me how to play alto/tenor sax when I was in 4th grade and it stuck with me all the way through high school. I marched snare and quads for four years at my high school for both marching band and winter percussion. My main instrument right now is bass, both upright and electric.
I'm a sophomore currently at SJSU. I started off as an Industrial Engineer, but switched my major to Business-Management Information Systems last year. This is my second online class I will be taking and had overall a good experience with my last class (Music Appreciation). My communication experience is mostly from being involved with my music program at my high school. I was section leader and had to oversee 50+ other students during various drill rehearsals and music run throughs. I took Comm 20 last semester and thoroughly enjoyed that class.
A little bit about myself..I'm a huge SF Giants fan, I'm always at Metcalf or Hollister every weekend riding my dirt bike, and I'm always listening or playing music. My great-grandfather taught me how to play alto/tenor sax when I was in 4th grade and it stuck with me all the way through high school. I marched snare and quads for four years at my high school for both marching band and winter percussion. My main instrument right now is bass, both upright and electric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)