Generalizing

 According to the book, generalizing basically means concluding a claim about a group from a claim about some part of it. I found this interesting because they way the book describes it, generalizing is something we do everyday and is how we "make sense of our world". In short, generalization are arguments, so they follow the same rules of whether or not an argument is strong, which is if it has a plausible premise. I liked the example the book used which was "28% of all smokers get cancer." This is a generalization based off findings by poll takers or scientists, and shows that it is something we always see in everyday life. Any time you watch the news, numbers and percentages are always used. These are generalizations! We use them pretty much everyday to help us make decisions. For example you could say: "It's raining really hard today, I should slow down when driving or I could lose control like last time or like many others who have sped in the rain!"

Likes\ DIslikes

One of my favorite things about the class was the weekly blog. I found that I often understood concepts more clearly after I read some of the other student entries on various topics. It was a good way for me to read about a topic from a different point of view other than my own. In many of my other classes, I don’t have this opportunity when I am confused about a topic and often times I find that the professor’s wording does not clear up my confusion. Similarly, one of my least favorite things was the blog post replies. Although 100 words is not a lot of words to write, I found replying to someone’s post, particularly if it was a short post, 100 words often seemed like too much. I found myself rewriting the replies or second guessing myself as to whether I was being too wordy.  

I don’t feel like this class could be improved in many ways, as it was an enjoyable class that I learned a lot in. However, possible room for improvement in one area would be that of the due dates. Saturday was often a difficult time to submit the papers and to complete the tests by mainly because my weekends as I work all weekend and also finish homework. Perhaps if the due dates were pushed forward to Sunday or to a day during the week, the due dates would not seem as awkward and would lift some stress for those who also have busy weekends.  

What I have learned

I have learned a lot from this class. I have learned many different concepts. Some that were hard and some that were not so hard. This class was way more easier than my other critical thinking class. One thing I will remember from this class was the appeals to emotion section. 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. When I watch TV now I point out when a commercial is trying to make you feel a certain way. I have realized that a lot of commercials and advertisements make you appeal to pity. They always want you to feel bad about something. Another appeal to emotion that will stick with me is appeal to fear. People are always trying to make you scared so you could do something. Politicians and advertisers always appeal to fear because they want to manipulate you. They will sometimes use arguments that don't even link the fear to the conclusion. So in general they are bad arguments. I have also learned about many different fallacies. Some of them are still a little hard to understand and recognize

Discussion 3

There are many criteria’s for cause and effect are: The cause happened, so basically the claim we are describing is true. Next the effect happens and then cause precedes the effect. It is nearly impossible for the cause to happen to be true and  the effect does not happen which is false giving the normal condition. The cause makes a difference- if the cause had not happened been true, the effect would not have happened been true, and there is no common cause. Also this chapter talks about the cause makes a difference. Also the correlation alone is not enough. For there to be the cause and effect, it must be that if the cause had not occurred, then there would not be the effect. There are two mistakes in evaluating cause and effect are reversing cause and effect, and looking too hard for a cause.

Discussion 2

The Mission Critical website is useful for us to familiar us with the basic concepts of critical thinking.. As might be expected, however, approaches to teaching critical thinking are as varied as the disciplines in which qualifying courses are taught. At San Jose State, for example, there are critical thinking courses in the departments of Communication Studies, English, History, Linguistics and Language Development, Philosophy, and Psychology; in addition, the critical thinking requirement is among those satisfied by special lower-division courses in American Studies and Humanities.  This website is useful for studying these diverse courses. This website can help us understand deductive reasoning and fallacious appeals. This website will allow us to concentrate on the more theoretical, conceptual, and practical issues and techniques which constitute the most efficient use of class time. This website has variety of exercises, which can help us understand the critical concepts and enhance our communication skills

Discussion 1 Cause and Effect website

The Cause and effect website is an extremely helpful website that assisted me with the understanding of the inductive reasoning and the complex types of arguments and claims. The explanation starts with inductive claims that were in the hidden inside the arguments. The website talks about the claims seems to fit the pattern of an inductive argument, because none of them seems based on observation or experience. But, in fact, they do fit that pattern. The bicyclist's lawyer, for example, is actually arguing that:Normally the bicyclist would have continued in the bike lane, but in this instance he swerved into the lane of traffic.The only significant difference between "normally" and "in this case" is the presence of the illegally parked truck.Therefore, the truck caused the bicyclist to swerve. Another topic that was useful was is strength of a causal argument, which then, relies on three factors:how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is (for example, do we think that there is a basic similarlity in most respects between the circumstances of this accident and those of the many other times bicycles and cars have traveled on this street safely;how likely the case for causation seems to be (for example, do we think that a bicycle swerving into an car's lane can cause an accident?how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is (for example, do we believe that the illegally parked truck is the only significant difference between this case and the many other times bicycles and cars went down that street without an accident?.

Discussion 3 week November 6-12

nalogical reasoning is a method of processing information that compares the similarities between new and understood concepts, then uses those similarities to gain understanding of the new concept. It is a form of inductive reasoning because it strives to provide understanding of what is likely to be true, rather than deductively proving something as fact. Analogical reasoning can be used by both children and adults as a way to learn new information or as part of a persuasive argument.

 I learned that the reasoning process begins by a person determining the target domain, or the new idea to be learned or explained. It is then compared to a general matching domain, or an idea that is already well-understood. The two domains must be similar enough to make a valid, substantial comparison. Specific qualities are chosen that belong to the matching domain, then related items are searched for in the target domain to tie the two domains together. For example, food’s effect on the human body can be an analogy to gasoline’s effect on a car because they are both responsible for making entities function correctly.

Discussion 2 week November 6-12

The most difficult reasoning i didn’t understand is causal reasoning.Causal reasoning is the idea that any cause leads to a certain effect, and is an example of inductive reasoning.It is based around a process of elimination, with many scientific processes using this method as a valuable tool for evaluating potential hypotheses.Medical practitioners, as an example, will try to establish and deduce what is causing a certain symptom. By isolating and treating this cause, through eliminating others, the symptom can be alleviated. Causal reasoning may be used to direct scientific research and eliminate unlikely hypotheses for understanding certain phenomena.As an example, we are certain that global warming is happening but are unsure exactly what factors are contributing to the phenomenon. I learned about the five methods of causal reasoning: The method of agreement, the method of difference, the method of residue, agreement and difference, and concomicant variation.

Discussion 1 week November 6-12

Induction is a major kind of reasoning process in which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases. It is usually contrasted with deduction, the reasoning process in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and in which the conclusion has to be true if the premises are true. In inductive reasoning, on the contrary, there is no logical movement from premises to conclusion. The premises constitute good reasons for accepting the conclusion. The premises in inductive reasoning are usually based on facts or observations. There is always a possibility, though, that the premises may be true while the conclusion is false, since there is not necessarily a logical relationship between premises and conclusion.Example: Every time eat spicy food, i get sick. Therefore i get sick because i eat spicy food.

Discussion 3

 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.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/heroin.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/bayerheroinad.htm&h=864&w=555&sz=19&tbnid=fCw7DNeZuj0rhM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=58&zoom=1&docid=mmbbgrK73iwscM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gfe1TpvfHeSZiQKAnoRc&ved=0CDYQ9QEwAg&dur=187

discussion 1 Appeal to emotion

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. Despite the example of Mr. Spock from the original Star Trek television series, emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking. However, there is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought, and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious.

When are appeals to emotion appropriate, and when are they fallacious? No student would attempt to prove a mathematical theorem by playing upon the teacher's sympathy for the long hours of hard work put into it. Such an appeal would be obviously irrelevant, since either the proof is correct or it is flawed, despite the student's best efforts. In contrast, if the teacher attempts to motivate the student to work on proving the theorem by invoking the specter of a failing grade, this appeal to fear is not irrelevant.

So, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it, and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it false; but the desire for something is often a good reason to pursue it, and fear of something else a good reason to flee.

Appeal to fear Discussion Post 3

Appeal to fear is a way politicians, and advertisers manipulate people. Appeal to fear is bad if it is substituted for one legitimate concern for others, clouding over mind to alternatives. Fear is a basic motivator that is used surprisingly often. The danger of using this is that it can also lead to other irrational emotions that can rebound upon the persuader, such as dislike and hate. Fear also results in people running away, but not always in the direction intended. Fear appeals seldom gain more than compliance. Emotional and intellectual agreement will lag far behind and may never be gained. Appeals to fear work on our emotions and our general lack of ability to understand risk. They work by:

1. Identifying a threat
2. Offering a prevention;
3. Convincing others that the prevention will be effective;
4. Convincing others that they are capable of facilitating the recommended prevention.

Example:

1. Vaccines harm children.
   
   True. There is always a risk that a child will have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
2. What is the level of risk?
   
   The chance of a vaccine causing an adverse reaction is generally several million to one against.
3. The prevention: do not vaccinate your child.
   
   The chances of adverse reactions to disease are generally thousands of times greater than in vaccinated children.
4. The prevention measure actually increases the risk by a factor of several thousand.
   
   This appeal to fear is a fallacious one.

Discussion Week 16-22

From the first major course assignment that I've done, it taught me a lot even though it was an online class assignment. First, it taught me how to work in a group environment through emails and chatting. I learned that online assignments can just be as effective as a in person assignment. Even though my group mates and I all have different schedule, I learned how to work around people's schedule and even sacrificing my hanging out time to adjust to my group mate's schedule. Second, it taught me that chatroom is just as useful as meeting in person. I find that chatroom helps a lot more because we can copy and paste websites to each other and share ideas and we get to discuss everything faster. Third, I learned that through the major assignments, it taught me to look over what I learned in the past and reapply it to make my arguments stronger. I find that the first and second major course assignment has taught me a lot in real life how to make arguments valid and strong.

Discussion Week 16-22

 In the chapter 8, Epstein talks about how to check whether certain kinds of arguments that use general claims are valid?  We can check the validity with diagrams which includes:

1)       A collection that is represented by an enclosed area.

2)      If one area is entirely with one another, then everything in one collection is also in other.

3)      If two areas overlap another, then there is something that is common to both selections.

4)      If two areas do not overlap, then there is nothing common to both collections.

5)      An “a” or a do n area marks that a particular object is in that collection

6)      Then we draw the areas to show the premises as true while trying to represent the conclusion is false. If we are able to represent the premises as true and conclusion is false then the argument is invalid. If there is no way to show the premises is true and conclusion is false then the argument is valid.

Discussion Week 16-22

In chapter 8 there is a section where Epstein mentions that general claims and their contradictions. In dealing with general claims, they deal with phrases with all and phrases with some. The word “all” means every single one, making no exceptions to anyone. Depending on the argument, there are many phrases to use when using  the word all; it can be either used as “ Every single one “ or “There are at least one” A personal example would include a situation that I was at Great America couple weeks ago, There was this group of youth with their teachers. They wanted to be separate din to two groups to have fun. But they had to be around with the kids with no exceptions.  It was there duty to be taking care of the children with any exception. It is basically A or P.

Discuusion week 2-8 Post 3

The slippery slope argument is clearly invalid if it is meant to be a point of logic, for it does not follow that "if b is an exception to A, then no part of A is true."  Specific exceptions to a rule or principle do not in any way logically imply that the rule is otherwise false or never justifiably applicable in any cases.  In fact, calling something an "exception" points out that only it is the relevant act that the rule does not cover.  If, for example, a pharmaceutical drug should be used only by people who have asthma, that does not imply people should also take it for arthritis or pregnancy.  Permitting stem cell research on embryos does not logically imply that sacrificing infants or terminally ill patients is acceptable. It appears the argument is meant to be more an argument about people's psychology, and, spelled out, it seems to be something more like "if you make any exceptions to a rule, particularly a cherished or time-honored rule, people will think the rule arbitrary to begin with and will see no reason to follow it at all."  Hence, any exceptions undermine respect for a rule, and thus eventually lead to the rule's not being followed at all.  Or another intended argument might be "people cannot generally make fine distinctions, so if you make an exception to a (time-honored) rule, people will think you have shown the rule to be flawed and therefore unnecessary to follow."

discussion week 2-8 post 2

From chapter 7 by Epstein, I have learned that you should include the other side when arguing for a controversial claim: Argument, counterargument, counter-counterargument. One of the contexts, I learned about counter argument is raising objections: is way to show that an argument is bad. In order to do that we are supposed to be making another argument that is either calls in to a question one of the premises, or shows that an unstated premises is dubious, as well illustrating if the argument is weak. Secondly, I learned about the ways of directly and indirectly refuting an argument. In order to refute an argument directly, we need to show that at least one of the premises is dubious. It is important to show that the argument is not valid or strong. Lastly, we need to show the conclusion is false. On the other hand in order to refute an argument indirectly,In order to however, would be to somehow show that there is no agreement upon the argument without straight up saying it. From the example above, one way to do this would sound a little like, "Jack just has a hard time adjusting his views and seeing two sides to the story. He usually likes to stick to what he knows; therefore usually believing that his way is the right way." From that, the person is not directly saying anything against the first claim. This is more of like a lighter version of opposing the claim, somewhat giving an explanation to hinder any negative thoughts about Jack being a stubborn person

 

 

Discuusion week 2-8 Post 1

In the chapter 6 by Epstein I have learned about filling in unstated premises, indicator words, what counts as a plausible premise, and reasoning with compound claims. Often we determine that an argument is valid or weak by looking at the role of a compound claim: which is linking of two or more claims together to make a new. It has to be viewed as one claim. Its truth value is depends on the truth values of the claims that are part of it.  Another thing I learned from this chapter is False dilemmas: is a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is a false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious “or” claim itself is called a false dilemma. A false dilemma arises when we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two and only two mutually exclusive options, when that is untrue. Generally, when this rhetorical strategy is used, one of the options is unacceptable and repulsive

Discuusion week 25-1 Answer2

Advertising surrounds us in our everyday lives, and advertisers use countless means to catch the customer's eye, including sexuality, celebrity appeal, fantasy, comedy, and creativity. I found an advertisement on Dove soap. It became a controversial issue. Dove soap advertisement shows three women standing in front of a wall split into "before" and "after" panes. The issue: The women become gradually lighter in skin from left to right. Advertisements are marketed to attract consumers to materialistic goods; they create an infatuation for perfection and for beauty. This infatuation may sound harmless, but it puts young adults on a path for desperate desire for acceptance and normality. When young adults find themselves on this path, they cannot judge what normality is, and define it as perfection. So basically we get trapped in to the materialistic world, start believing in the advertisement.

Week of September 25 Question3

I found something interesting in chapter 4 where Epstein describes the unrepairable arguments. According to Epstein we don’t repair an argument if there is no argument there. The argument is so lacking in coherence that there is nothing obvious to add. A premise it uses is false or dubious and cannot be deleted. Two of its premises are contradictory, and neither can be deleted. The obvious premise to add would make the argument weak. The obvious premise to add to make the argument strong or valid is false. The conclusion is clearly false. . The book gives an example of an unrepairable argument about alcoholism and how it is a disease that people can overcome within themselves but wants more treatment center to be built. The two claims that alcoholism and treatment centers should be built contradict each other, which is one of the things that makes an argument unrepairable. When an argument contradicts itself within its claim it is fair to say that the argument is no good and is unrepairable.

Discussion week sep 25-oct1 post #1 Repairing Arguments

             In the textbook, I find Chapter 4 to be very useful and interesting. This chapter teaches me about several methods on how to fix arguments that are weak and lacking in an effective premise or an effective conclusion. Epstein talks about ways to repair an argument.  As stated in the book the guide to repairing Argument give an implicit argument that is apparently defective, we are justified in adding a premise or conclusion if it satisfies 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.

For example: Humans cannot fly. Therefore Amy cannot fly. This is a logical argument but still needs repairing. The only sentence that needs to be added is that “Amy is a human” Since know we know Amy is a human, therefore the argument is valid and strong.

Discuusion week 11-17 Post 3

  Something interesting I have found in the chapter 11 is the steps of analyzing complex arguments. First of all we need to read the passage, and decide whether it’s an argument. If it is an argument then identify the conclusion, then number the every sentence or clause that might be a claim. Then for each numbered part: We need to check if it is ambiguous or too vague to be claim. If its vague is there a way to clear that up.  Next step identify the claims that lead directly to the conclusion. Then identify the sub arguments that are meant to support the claims that lead directly to the conclusion. Furthermore, see if the obvious objections have been considered. Note which of the claims in the argument are unsupported and evaluate. Evaluate each argument as valid on the scale from strong to weak. Is there a way to repair the fallacy?  Evaluate each  argument as valid from strong to weak.

Discussion 2 week 11-17 Exercise 2

Exercise #2 Page 225

“I am on my way to school. I left five minutes late.  Traffic is heavy. Therefore I’ll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast” Epstein

First we need to make sure if this is an argument: Yes

 This is an argument because this person is talking about why he or she is late for class. That person is going to school. He or she going to school, leaving five minutes late, and going through heavy traffic are claims. However, I think he or she being late for class is a claim as well because it supports the conclusion which is deciding to get breakfast.
Conclusion:
The conclusion for this argument is stopping to get breakfast due to being late.

I think a premise is needed to explain why he or she should get breakfast. If he or she did forget to eat breakfast before leaving the house, there should be premises mentioning that. If there isn't, you can and might as well add a different conclusion. The sub argument is this that she is getting late because of heavy traffic. I do not think this is a good argument because he or she did not state why he or she should get breakfast. If there was a premises that showed that he or she had a reason to get breakfast, then I would say this is a good argument. He or she also had the choice to still go to class without eating breakfast. Either way, he or she will be late.
I actually found this exercise useful because it tells you that you should be aware about your conclusion. In a way, it's a lesson teaching us that we should think before we act.  

Discussion 2 week 11-17 Violating the principle of Rational Discussion

Begging the Question: is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or we can assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of reasoning is explained in this form: Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is, it could be directly or indirectly. Then the claim C is true. This reasoning is a fallacy because assuming that the conclusion is true directly or indirectly in the premise does not show evidence for conclusion. For example: If a person say God exists and other person ask how do know? Then the other person says because it is in the bible. So if it is in the bible we should believe it. So point of the claim is to convince that a claim is true. So the premises of the argument have to be more plausible than the conclusion

Discussion Week 4-10 #2 Leadership

This week I have found something interesting section about the role of leadership. There are many ways to  define leadership. Some might say it is guiding or directing the group. The book gives the definition of leadership as the exercise of interpersonal influence towards the attainment of goals. Which simply means to me that the leader simply gives the necessary motivation to his or her group members. Some or all leaders of the group tend to have one of the four decision-making styles. The four decision-making styles included authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire. Consultative leadership is  that the leader takes the decision by asking the others. Basically it’s like democracy: to the people, by the people, for the people. Everyone’s opinion is heard by the leader, then he or she takes the final decision. Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group. Participative leadership is when leader participates and guide other people of the group, it can also be democratic. Laissez faire leadership is when leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members.

Discussion Week 4-10 #2 Strong vs Valid arguments

Valid argument:  An argument is valid if there is no possible way for its premises to be true, and its conclusion to be false at the same time. Some valid arguments are bad. Not all good arguments are valid, and an argument could be either valid or not valid. Also not all valid arguments are good, a premise could be implausible. For example:  All birds are mammals. Parrot is a bird. Therefor e parrot is a mammal. This is a valid deductive argument. It is interesting to note that the conclusion is true.

 Strong Argument: An argument is strong if there is some way, some possibility for its premise to be true, and its conclusion to be false, but every such possibility is extremely unlikely. For example: Killing innocent human being is morally wrong. Abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human. Therefore, elective abortion is morally wrong. 

Discussion 1 week 4-10 The Tests for an Argument to Be Good

In chapter 3 of Epstein, according to the text, in order for any argument to be a good argument it must pass three tests. An argument that does not pass any of these tests will be considered as a bad argument.  Epstein describes that the first test is for the premise to be plausible. Basically an argument should have valid or good reason words, For the second test, the premise of the argument must be more plausible than the conclusion. The second argument must be more believeable. It could be false. Lastly, in the third test, the argument must be valid or strong. 
Example:  All whales are mammals. All mammals  are intelligent. So all whales are intelligent.
This is an example of an argument because two of the premise is true while the conclusion might be false. The two premise is common knowledge because everyone knows that whales are mammals.