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/
Saturday, October 23, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)