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.