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.