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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.