The concept that needs further discussion, in my opinion, is chapter 9 of the Epstein text. This chapter talks about concealed claims.
One of the concepts is the Euphemism and Dysphemism. Euphemism is when a word or phrase that makes something sound better than a neutral description and Dysphemism is when a word or phrase that makes something sound worse than a neutral description.
The text shows a few examples about this concept but doesn't really explain it like when are they good to use it, where should people use them, how they should be used or why such terms should be used. They should show some examples where a good word is used as dysphemism.
I'm pretty sure these terms, Euphemism and Dysphemism, are used by people in their daily lives without even noticing it. People use these concepts in their advertisements to make their products sound nice and fancy or make their competition's products sound ugly and bad so that they can persuade their viewers to buy their products instead of their competion's.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Like/Dislike
In this class, Comm 41, what I liked about it is that it is an online class because I didn't have to get up early in the morning to go to class like my other classes. I also liked the program/system, blogger website, that is used for this class because it is very easy to access and very straightforward. I liked the most that this class required as to work in a group for 3 projects because I got to interact with some of my classmates and put the lessons I learned in test.
What I didn't like about the class is the fact that students had to wait 12 hours of timespan between each of the 3 posts for the weekly participation assignment of the class. I personally didn't like it because I waned to finish the weekly participation assignment as soon as possible and I could have done all 3 questions in one seating and get it over with and be done for the week for the class but I could not because the 12 hour wait timespan prevented me from doing it since it was the instructor's instruction.
The only improvment I could suggest for this class is to take out the 12 hour wait timespan for the weekly partication assignment because I'm pretty sure that other students would also want to finish the assignment as soon as possible to get them over with and out of the way or at least reduce the waiting time span to 6 hours so that students don't have to wait for a long time to finish another participation question.
Other than that, to me, the class in overall is very helpful because the lessons for this class helped me learn a lot about critical thinking especially in how to determine if an argument is valid, invalid, good, bad, strong or weak. I definitely would suggest other students to take this class because not only they will learn a lot of things, they will also have fun working with other students for the group project and put the lessons they will learn in this class to test.
What I didn't like about the class is the fact that students had to wait 12 hours of timespan between each of the 3 posts for the weekly participation assignment of the class. I personally didn't like it because I waned to finish the weekly participation assignment as soon as possible and I could have done all 3 questions in one seating and get it over with and be done for the week for the class but I could not because the 12 hour wait timespan prevented me from doing it since it was the instructor's instruction.
The only improvment I could suggest for this class is to take out the 12 hour wait timespan for the weekly partication assignment because I'm pretty sure that other students would also want to finish the assignment as soon as possible to get them over with and out of the way or at least reduce the waiting time span to 6 hours so that students don't have to wait for a long time to finish another participation question.
Other than that, to me, the class in overall is very helpful because the lessons for this class helped me learn a lot about critical thinking especially in how to determine if an argument is valid, invalid, good, bad, strong or weak. I definitely would suggest other students to take this class because not only they will learn a lot of things, they will also have fun working with other students for the group project and put the lessons they will learn in this class to test.
Argument
This semester, in Comm 41, I have learned how to determine if whether an argument is bad, good, invalid, valid, strong, or weak.
An argument is an attempt to convince someone that a particular claim, called the conclusion, is true. The rest of the argument is a collection of claims called premises, which are given as the reasons for believing the conclusion is true (Epstein, p.5).
A strong argument is if it is possible but unlikely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time).
A weak argument is if it is possible and likely for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time).
A valid argument is in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion (at the same time).
An invalid argument would be the opposite of a valid argument. It is usually classified from strong to weak.
Example:
All fishes swim.
Therefore, salmons swim.
This would be a valid and strong argument because the true premise leads to a true conclusion. We all believe that all fishes have a true nature skill to swim and since salmon is a kind of fish, then salmons swim. Even though, some fishes like mud-fish stay in the mud at times, they still swim.
Another example:
All Honda cars, after 1996 have VTEC engines.
Therefore, the next Honda car model will have a VTEC engine.
This argument is valid because the premise is true that all Honda cars that are made after 1996 have VTEC engines. But, the conclusion could be possibly true or false because we do not know if Honda will be putting a VTEC engine or a new type of engine on the next Honda car model which makes it a weak argument.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Chapter 15
One concept from chapter 15 in the Epstein text is the Cause and Effect in Populations. The text says that a Cause in populations is usually explained as meaning that given the cause, there's a higher probability that the effect will follow than if there were not the cause. The text used the "Smoking causes lung cancer" example for this concept but doesn't really state how smoking can cause lung cancer so they used an activity to come up with an evidence.
1. Controlled experiment: cause-to-effect.
In this experiment, people are split into two groups - one group of smokers and one group of non-smokers which is called the control group. The point of using a control group is to show that, at least statistically, the cause makes a difference.
2. Uncontrolled experiment: cause-to-effect - starts with the suspected cause and see if the effect follows.
In this experiment, there are two randomly chosen, representatives sample of the general population for other possible causes of lung cancer such as working in coal mines and a group of people who say they have never smoke. This doesn't have a controlled group.
3. Uncontrolled experiment: effect-to-cause - starts with the effect in the population and try to account for how it got there.
In this experiment, it consists of many people who have lung cancer to see if there is some common thread that occurs in (almost all) their lives. They are factored into coal mine workers, lived in high pollution areas, drank a lot and smokers.
The experiment with the controlled group would have the best evidence because if the people who smoke turns out to have a lung cancer and nothing for the non-smokers after the experiment is done, then it is clearly shows that smoking causes lung cancer.
1. Controlled experiment: cause-to-effect.
In this experiment, people are split into two groups - one group of smokers and one group of non-smokers which is called the control group. The point of using a control group is to show that, at least statistically, the cause makes a difference.
2. Uncontrolled experiment: cause-to-effect - starts with the suspected cause and see if the effect follows.
In this experiment, there are two randomly chosen, representatives sample of the general population for other possible causes of lung cancer such as working in coal mines and a group of people who say they have never smoke. This doesn't have a controlled group.
3. Uncontrolled experiment: effect-to-cause - starts with the effect in the population and try to account for how it got there.
In this experiment, it consists of many people who have lung cancer to see if there is some common thread that occurs in (almost all) their lives. They are factored into coal mine workers, lived in high pollution areas, drank a lot and smokers.
The experiment with the controlled group would have the best evidence because if the people who smoke turns out to have a lung cancer and nothing for the non-smokers after the experiment is done, then it is clearly shows that smoking causes lung cancer.
Friday, April 29, 2011
MIssion Critical
One of the concepts I found useful was is the vagueness and ambiguity. These two seems like have the same meaning but is totally different from each other because a word or phrase is said to be ambiguous if it has at least two specific meanings and a word or phrase is considered vague if the meaning is not clear.
An example for vague would be this:
My friends and I went to the mall and while we were walking around, we saw a group of females walking towards us and right when they passed us by , one of my friend said, "Damn, that girl is hot."
What my friend said is vague because my other friends and I didn't know which girl he was talkin about because there were five of them, until we asked him which girl was he talkin about. He didn't exactly point out which girl he was talking about.
As for ambiguity, the site gave few examples for it.
After Hubert Humphrey lost the election to Richard Nixon, he said, "I'd always wanted to run for president in the worst way, and now I have."
"In the worst way" is ambiguios because it could mean "very much" or "very poorly."
An example for vague would be this:
My friends and I went to the mall and while we were walking around, we saw a group of females walking towards us and right when they passed us by , one of my friend said, "Damn, that girl is hot."
What my friend said is vague because my other friends and I didn't know which girl he was talkin about because there were five of them, until we asked him which girl was he talkin about. He didn't exactly point out which girl he was talking about.
As for ambiguity, the site gave few examples for it.
After Hubert Humphrey lost the election to Richard Nixon, he said, "I'd always wanted to run for president in the worst way, and now I have."
"In the worst way" is ambiguios because it could mean "very much" or "very poorly."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Cause and Effect website
In the Cause and Effect website, I find inductive reasoning useful because it helped me understand a little more on reasoning constructing or evaluating inductive arguments. Inductive reasoning is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates inductive arguments. The premises for the inductive argument indicate some probability - based on observation or experience, for the conclusion but do not impose it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. The site also provided an example to help the reader understand what is going on and how inductive reasoning works. Also, the site states two rules to remember in dealing with causation which are:
- The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reserve casaution. One the other, arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples of fallacious post hoc reasoning.
- Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original "cause" and its purported "effect."
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Fallacy of Composition
Chapter 12 of the Epstein text shows different examples on judging analogies. One of them is "Fallacy of Composition." Fallacy of Compostion means that something is done when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents even thnet ough there really is no reason provided for the inference. An example for fallacy of composition which I found on the net is...
Human cells are invisible to the naked eye.
Humans are made up of human cells.
Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye.Just by looking at the argument, it seems like it would be valid because the conclusion "Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye" would be true based on the first premise "Human cells are invisible to the naked eye" since humans are made up of human cells, but in reality this argument would be false because we all know that humans are not invisible to the naked eye which makes the argument as a fallacy of composition.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Reasoning by Analogy
To me, every type of the reasoning given is pretty hard and confusing to understand, but the most difficult reasoning to understand for me is the reasoning by analogy because in the beginning, I was confused on how it works. According to the Einstein text, "A comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it is part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same." I thought it was just basically comparing two things based on exact or similar idea because that is what analogy is about. But when I got to see the examples, it was totally different. This lone analogy turned into a argument because there is a conclusion on one side of the comparison and the same conclusion for the other side.
For example:
Inside is to outside as upside is to downside.
Fish is to water as bird is to air.
These examples are just analogy and not a reasoning by analogy because we are just comparing two things and didn't conclude anything.
An example for reasoning by analogy would be is like the one from the Epstein text:
"Blaming soldiers for war is like blaming firemen for fires."
Analysis: A comparison but meant as an argument:
We don't blame firemen for fires.
Firemen and fire are like soldiers and wars.
Therefore, we should not blame soldiers for war.
This example is more of a reasoning by analogy and not just an analogy because you are arguing that since we don't blame firemen for fires, then we should not blame soldiers for war because firemen and fire are like soldiers and wars.
For example:
Inside is to outside as upside is to downside.
Fish is to water as bird is to air.
These examples are just analogy and not a reasoning by analogy because we are just comparing two things and didn't conclude anything.
An example for reasoning by analogy would be is like the one from the Epstein text:
"Blaming soldiers for war is like blaming firemen for fires."
Analysis: A comparison but meant as an argument:
We don't blame firemen for fires.
Firemen and fire are like soldiers and wars.
Therefore, we should not blame soldiers for war.
This example is more of a reasoning by analogy and not just an analogy because you are arguing that since we don't blame firemen for fires, then we should not blame soldiers for war because firemen and fire are like soldiers and wars.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Reasoning
The type of reasonings that are being covered are Reasoning by Analogy, Sign Reasoning, Casual Reasoning, Reasoning by Criteria, Reasoning by Example, Inductive, and Deductive.
According to Epstein, a comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it is part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same. For example, All humans eat. Michael Jordan is a human. Therefore, Michael Jordan eats.
Sign Reasoning asserts that two or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other. For example, the house floor is wet; they must have mopped earlier.
Casual Reasoning is when we have good reason to believe that events of one sort (the causes) are systematically related to events of some other sort (the effects). For example, my friend has sprained ankle. He was probably landed on someone's foot playing basketball.
Reasoning by Criteria starts by defining the criteria by which the outcome of a decision will be judged, and then identify the best decision, given these constraints. For example, Jason wants to eat something heavy for dinner, maybe a steak would be good for him.
Reasoning by example is using examples in a argument. You should start exercising and eat more lean foods if you want to lose weight and tone up. My friend lost ridicoulous weight by doing it.
Inductive is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either specifically or generally, based on previous observation. For example, The sun rises in the east every morning. Therefore, the sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.
Deductive is which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments which conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. For example, Akira is a Husky. Husky barks. Therefore, Akira barks.
According to Epstein, a comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it is part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same. For example, All humans eat. Michael Jordan is a human. Therefore, Michael Jordan eats.
Sign Reasoning asserts that two or more things are so closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other. For example, the house floor is wet; they must have mopped earlier.
Casual Reasoning is when we have good reason to believe that events of one sort (the causes) are systematically related to events of some other sort (the effects). For example, my friend has sprained ankle. He was probably landed on someone's foot playing basketball.
Reasoning by Criteria starts by defining the criteria by which the outcome of a decision will be judged, and then identify the best decision, given these constraints. For example, Jason wants to eat something heavy for dinner, maybe a steak would be good for him.
Reasoning by example is using examples in a argument. You should start exercising and eat more lean foods if you want to lose weight and tone up. My friend lost ridicoulous weight by doing it.
Inductive is a form of inference producing propositions about unobserved objects or types, either specifically or generally, based on previous observation. For example, The sun rises in the east every morning. Therefore, the sun will also rise in the east tomorrow.
Deductive is which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments which conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. For example, Akira is a Husky. Husky barks. Therefore, Akira barks.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Appeal to Pity
Another concept in Chapter 10 of Epstein's book is the appeal to pity. The appeal of pity is when someone use something on advertisement that will make their audeince come to their senses and donate money or something helpful to help people make a better living after feeling sorry for them. An example for this would be like this one advertisement I saw on TV where they showed few pictures of beaten animals and stated that donating a dollar or two could help and build a shelter for those animals. I know people would end up donating money or anything that could possibly help those beaten animals because they will feel sorry and have sympathy after seeing those horrible pictures. Another example would be an adverstisement who uses photos of people who looks unhealthy due to the fact that they are homeless and have no money to buy food to feed their family. This would most likely make the audiences feel sorry and end up donating money, goods, clothes or anything that could help these people for the better.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Fear
http://gothamist.com/attachments/tien/2007_04_quitsmoking.jpg
The advertisement I think that uses an appeal to fear is stop smoking ads. These ads are all over now because they want to prevent or stop people from smoking by showing them pictures and explaining it to them how smoking can put people's lives in danger due to the diseases that they can get from smoking and can lead to death.
This ad that I found shows how smoking can give you a serious illness that can lead your death. Smoking cannot only give cause you throat cancer, but also lung cancers such as obstructive lung disease that results from blockage or narrowing of air passageways and many other diseases that can lead to death. This argument is good since all the premises and conclusion are supported by examples that are true. This ad appeal to fear because it shows how smoking can cause numerous kinds of cancers that can lead to death. I don't think people would want that to happen to them and suffer to death especially me because my uncle died from having lung cancer due to smoking.
The advertisement I think that uses an appeal to fear is stop smoking ads. These ads are all over now because they want to prevent or stop people from smoking by showing them pictures and explaining it to them how smoking can put people's lives in danger due to the diseases that they can get from smoking and can lead to death.
This ad that I found shows how smoking can give you a serious illness that can lead your death. Smoking cannot only give cause you throat cancer, but also lung cancers such as obstructive lung disease that results from blockage or narrowing of air passageways and many other diseases that can lead to death. This argument is good since all the premises and conclusion are supported by examples that are true. This ad appeal to fear because it shows how smoking can cause numerous kinds of cancers that can lead to death. I don't think people would want that to happen to them and suffer to death especially me because my uncle died from having lung cancer due to smoking.
Two wrongs make a right?
Emotions play a role in people's everyday lives. Either in a positive or negative way, emotions have something to with the decisions we make. According to Epstein, "An appeal to emotion in an argument with a prescriptive conlclusion can be good or can be bad. Being alert to the use of emotion helps clarify the kinds of premises needed in sich an argument, so we can more easily analyze it(p. 194)."
The type of Appeal to Emotion that strikes me is the appeal to spite because this "get even" thing happens a lot between me and my friends. We always tend to use this type of appeal whenever we are at a restaurant.
For example:
Me: Anthoni, you're paying for my food tonight.
Anthoni: Why?
Me: I paid for your food last time so you're paying for my food this time.
Or the other way around. Since we don't want to disappoint each other, we just do it to make be fair with each other.
The type of Appeal to Emotion that strikes me is the appeal to spite because this "get even" thing happens a lot between me and my friends. We always tend to use this type of appeal whenever we are at a restaurant.
For example:
Me: Anthoni, you're paying for my food tonight.
Anthoni: Why?
Me: I paid for your food last time so you're paying for my food this time.
Or the other way around. Since we don't want to disappoint each other, we just do it to make be fair with each other.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Some Valid and Invalid Forms
The direct way of reasoning with all...
All S are P
a is S
So a is P
All S are P + a is S = a is P
This argument is valid because it exactly the same as the argument:
All dogs bark.
Marley is a dog.
So Ralph barks.
We all know that all dogs bark and Marley is a dog, then that means that Marley barks.
and for arguing backwards with all...
All S are P
a is P
So a is S
All S are P + a is P = a is S.
This argument would be weak because this argument is like this argument:
All dogs bark.
Marley barks.
So Marley is a dog.
This argument is overlooking possibilities. We do all know that dogs bark, but we can't jump into the conclusion of Marley is a dog even if Marley barks because Marley could be a person trying to play a title of a dog barking or something else.
All S are P
a is S
So a is P
All S are P + a is S = a is P
This argument is valid because it exactly the same as the argument:
All dogs bark.
Marley is a dog.
So Ralph barks.
We all know that all dogs bark and Marley is a dog, then that means that Marley barks.
and for arguing backwards with all...
All S are P
a is P
So a is S
All S are P + a is P = a is S.
This argument would be weak because this argument is like this argument:
All dogs bark.
Marley barks.
So Marley is a dog.
This argument is overlooking possibilities. We do all know that dogs bark, but we can't jump into the conclusion of Marley is a dog even if Marley barks because Marley could be a person trying to play a title of a dog barking or something else.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Usefulness
To me, the second group assignment was more useful than the first assignment because I got to learn more about the organization, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), that I didn't know that much about it before. PETA creates awareness for animal rights and welfare and rejects any and all forms of animal abuse and cruelty. I enjoyed doing this assignment more because I learned more about how and when to accept and rejecting claims or suspend judgment. You can agree and accept PETA's claims because their claims are based on fact and research and I believe that they have or are the authority when it comes to animal rights and welfare. Yes, I believe that animals shouldn't be hurt and should not suffer but I would also consider it if it involved the welfare of human beings. I also believe that humans need their nutrition from meat and that humans are genetically built to eat meat. In this case, I could suspend judgment since I am a living contradiction of what PETA preaches.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
AllSome
Some people use the word "all" and "some" in their argument sometimes. But not all makes their argument good because they use them wrong.
For example:
All birds fly.
Penguin is one type of bird..
Penguin flies.
This seems valid, but it's not. We all know that penguins don't fly and neither do ostriches which contradics the phrase "all birds fly". So this argument is bad and invalid.
Accorind to Epstein, "All means "Every single one, no exceptions." Sometimes all is meant as "Every single one, and there is at least one." Which reading is best may depend on the argument. And some means "At least one." Sometimes some is as "At least one, but not all." Which reading is best may depend on the argument(Epstein, p.160).
Another example:
Professor Tran requires all his students to use #2 pencil for their exams and students can't take the exam without it.
Becky took Professor Tran's class exam.
Becky used a #2 pencil for the exam.
This argument is valid and good because the word "all" is used properly. We all know that Becky should have not been able to take the exam if she didn't have a #2 pencil to write with on the exam.
For example:
All birds fly.
Penguin is one type of bird..
Penguin flies.
This seems valid, but it's not. We all know that penguins don't fly and neither do ostriches which contradics the phrase "all birds fly". So this argument is bad and invalid.
Accorind to Epstein, "All means "Every single one, no exceptions." Sometimes all is meant as "Every single one, and there is at least one." Which reading is best may depend on the argument. And some means "At least one." Sometimes some is as "At least one, but not all." Which reading is best may depend on the argument(Epstein, p.160).
Another example:
Professor Tran requires all his students to use #2 pencil for their exams and students can't take the exam without it.
Becky took Professor Tran's class exam.
Becky used a #2 pencil for the exam.
This argument is valid and good because the word "all" is used properly. We all know that Becky should have not been able to take the exam if she didn't have a #2 pencil to write with on the exam.
Friday, March 11, 2011
O_O
Using "or" for reasoning with claims can often determine that an argument is valid or weak by looking at the role a compound claim plays in it(Epstein, p. 116).
For example:
Either mom brought the pizza home or dad.
Mom didn't bring the pizza home because she was home all day.
So it must be dad who brought the pizza home.
This argument is valid because there's no possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time.
Another example::
Jade owns a pet. Her pet is either a dog or cat. Her pet is a German Sheperd. So her pet must be a dog.
This argument is valid again because the premises are true and conclusion cant be false at the same time. This is also a strong argument because we all know that her premises are facts and a German Sheperd is a breed of a dog.
For example:
Either mom brought the pizza home or dad.
Mom didn't bring the pizza home because she was home all day.
So it must be dad who brought the pizza home.
This argument is valid because there's no possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time.
Another example::
Jade owns a pet. Her pet is either a dog or cat. Her pet is a German Sheperd. So her pet must be a dog.
This argument is valid again because the premises are true and conclusion cant be false at the same time. This is also a strong argument because we all know that her premises are facts and a German Sheperd is a breed of a dog.
Chapter 7
Refuting an argument is showing that an argument is bad. There are 3 direct ways of refuting an argument: (Epstein, p. 149)
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.
And when refuting an argument indirectly, it is sometimes hard to point out a premise that is false or dubious, but you know there's something wrong with the premises. You might get the conclusion that's argued for, but you get a lot more, too-which leads premises to an absurdity(Epstein, p. 149-150).
Reducing to the absurd is to reduce to the absurd is to show that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them(Epstein, p. 150). If a valid or strong argument has a false conclusion, one of the premises is false. And if the conclusion is absurd, the premises aren't what you want.
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.
And when refuting an argument indirectly, it is sometimes hard to point out a premise that is false or dubious, but you know there's something wrong with the premises. You might get the conclusion that's argued for, but you get a lot more, too-which leads premises to an absurdity(Epstein, p. 149-150).
Reducing to the absurd is to reduce to the absurd is to show that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them(Epstein, p. 150). If a valid or strong argument has a false conclusion, one of the premises is false. And if the conclusion is absurd, the premises aren't what you want.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Chapter 6
Chapter 6 in the Epstein text, I learned about compound claims and "or" claims. A compound claim is a one composed of other claims, but which hasto be viewed as just one claim(Epstein, p.113).
For example: "I'll take you out to eat at Red Robin or I'll take you out to the movies."
I didn't promise to take you out to eat at Red Robin nor take you out to the movies. I promised to do one or the other. This is considered as one claim, not two. If I used the word "and" instead of "or", then we would have two claims - "I'll take you out to eat at Red Robin" and I'll take you out to the movies".
Another lesson I learned from chapter 6 is the contradictory of a claim. The contracditory of a claim is one htath as the opposite truth-value in all possible circumtances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim(Epstein, p. 114).
Example:
Claim: I am allergic to alcohol.
Contradictory: I am not allergic to alcohol.
For example: "I'll take you out to eat at Red Robin or I'll take you out to the movies."
I didn't promise to take you out to eat at Red Robin nor take you out to the movies. I promised to do one or the other. This is considered as one claim, not two. If I used the word "and" instead of "or", then we would have two claims - "I'll take you out to eat at Red Robin" and I'll take you out to the movies".
Another lesson I learned from chapter 6 is the contradictory of a claim. The contracditory of a claim is one htath as the opposite truth-value in all possible circumtances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim(Epstein, p. 114).
Example:
Claim: I am allergic to alcohol.
Contradictory: I am not allergic to alcohol.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Inferring and Implying
"Inferring is when you decide that an unstated claim is the conclusion. And implying is when someone leaves a conclusion unsaid." (Epstein, p.74)
For example: Suppose a teacher says in math class, "All of my best students go to workshops for extra credit." The teacher hasn't actually said you should in extra work. But you infer that she has implied "If you want to do well in this class, you'd better go to workshops for extra credit."
Implying and inferring could be risky because of you complain to the department head that your teacher is demanding more than she asked on the syllabus, your teacher could reply that you just inferred incorrectly. The teacher might say, "I've observed that my best students do extra-credit work - that's all I was saying. I had no intention of making an argument." You, however, could say that in the context in which she made the remark it was fairly obvious she was implying that if you wanted her to believe you are a good student, you should go to workshops.
This example is really the same as the example from the book. (Epstein, p.74)
For example: Suppose a teacher says in math class, "All of my best students go to workshops for extra credit." The teacher hasn't actually said you should in extra work. But you infer that she has implied "If you want to do well in this class, you'd better go to workshops for extra credit."
Implying and inferring could be risky because of you complain to the department head that your teacher is demanding more than she asked on the syllabus, your teacher could reply that you just inferred incorrectly. The teacher might say, "I've observed that my best students do extra-credit work - that's all I was saying. I had no intention of making an argument." You, however, could say that in the context in which she made the remark it was fairly obvious she was implying that if you wanted her to believe you are a good student, you should go to workshops.
This example is really the same as the example from the book. (Epstein, p.74)
Advertising
http://www.karmaloop.com/index-new.aspx
Receiving emails from the store people buy things from about deals excite people because this give them the chance to save money due to getting good deals. Free shipping is one of the best deals we could get when we shop online. I just visited www.karmaloop.com, the online store I always buy my clothes from and found that they are giving a free shipping on orders over $50 by using the code 50SHIP. Either you buy new arrival items or sale items, you will get the free shipping as long as your order costs over $50.
Karmaloop also gives exclusive deals to people who sign up to represent karmaloop, like myself, by sending them emails. For example, I got an email about a deal that gives me 20% off on MENS REGULAR priced items only.
Receiving emails from the store people buy things from about deals excite people because this give them the chance to save money due to getting good deals. Free shipping is one of the best deals we could get when we shop online. I just visited www.karmaloop.com, the online store I always buy my clothes from and found that they are giving a free shipping on orders over $50 by using the code 50SHIP. Either you buy new arrival items or sale items, you will get the free shipping as long as your order costs over $50.
Karmaloop also gives exclusive deals to people who sign up to represent karmaloop, like myself, by sending them emails. For example, I got an email about a deal that gives me 20% off on MENS REGULAR priced items only.
Based on my personal experience, this source is reliable because all the given statements are facts. I get almost all of my clothes from this site and I have never had a problem with them. If you happen to have a problem with sizes or anything, you can contact them and tell them what the problem is and they will help you out. Also, “the claim is in a media source that’s usually reliable and has no obvious motive to mislead, and the original source is named” (Epstein, p.90).
Thursday, March 3, 2011
FIX IT!
Argument: All fishes swim. Therefore, Nemo swims.
This argument would be valid or strong argument if it will be repaired. Even if all fishes swims and concluding that Nemo swims without stating that Nemo is a fish, that argument wouldn't make any sense because Nemo could be anything. So, this argument needs to repaired in order for it to be a valid or strong argument.
To fix this, "Nemo is a fish" should be added because it is the only premise that will make this a valid or strong argument. Adding this true premise will make the argument good.
Repaired statement would be:
All fishes swim. Nemo is a fish. Therefore, Nemo swims.
Stating Nemo is a fish would give "Nemo swims" more sense. It makes the argument a valid and strong argument. Without the premise "Nemo is a fish", the argument would not make sense at all and ends up as a invalid argument.
This argument would be valid or strong argument if it will be repaired. Even if all fishes swims and concluding that Nemo swims without stating that Nemo is a fish, that argument wouldn't make any sense because Nemo could be anything. So, this argument needs to repaired in order for it to be a valid or strong argument.
To fix this, "Nemo is a fish" should be added because it is the only premise that will make this a valid or strong argument. Adding this true premise will make the argument good.
Repaired statement would be:
All fishes swim. Nemo is a fish. Therefore, Nemo swims.
Stating Nemo is a fish would give "Nemo swims" more sense. It makes the argument a valid and strong argument. Without the premise "Nemo is a fish", the argument would not make sense at all and ends up as a invalid argument.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Structural Fallacy - arguing backwards with all
According to Epstein, structural arguments are some type of arguments that are bad because of their form. It doesn't matter if they are about animals, human beings, things, false or truth. It is just bad because the form alone shows that the person is not reasoning well.
One fallacy type is arguing backwards with all:
All S are P.
a is P.
Therefore, a is S.
For example:
All cheeseburgers have bread.
Ham sandwich has bread.
Therefore, ham sandwich is a cheeseburger.
This is really a bad argument since we all know that a ham sandwich is not a cheeseburger. There is no way to fix this argument at all.
Another example is:
All girls are noisy.
Eddie Murphy is noisy.
Therefore, Eddie Murphy is a girl.
Same goes for this argument. It is bad. We all know that Eddie Murphy is not a girl. There is no way to fix it.
Both arguments do not make sense at all.
One fallacy type is arguing backwards with all:
All S are P.
a is P.
Therefore, a is S.
For example:
All cheeseburgers have bread.
Ham sandwich has bread.
Therefore, ham sandwich is a cheeseburger.
This is really a bad argument since we all know that a ham sandwich is not a cheeseburger. There is no way to fix this argument at all.
Another example is:
All girls are noisy.
Eddie Murphy is noisy.
Therefore, Eddie Murphy is a girl.
Same goes for this argument. It is bad. We all know that Eddie Murphy is not a girl. There is no way to fix it.
Both arguments do not make sense at all.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to emotion is a type of fallacy that is commited when someone manipulates people's emotions in order to get them accept a claim as being true. People try to tell other people to get or buy certain things because it is good for their health and it benefits them. Also, it could be people telling others to not get or buy certain things because it is bad for them. Basically, it has something to do with people's feelings. Good or bad, it is a appeal to emotion type of fallacy. And it is always bad if the conclusion is a descriptive claim according to Epstein.
For example:
You should eat oranges because they provide a lot of vitamin C and it is good for the body and health since it helps prevent diseases and protects the immune system.
This example would be a appeal to emotion since someone is convicing someone to eat oranges because it provides vitamin C and good for their health. Also, the conclusion is descriptive since it says that it is good for the body and health and it helps prevent diseases and protects the immune system, which makes it as a appeal to emotion fallacy.
For example:
You should eat oranges because they provide a lot of vitamin C and it is good for the body and health since it helps prevent diseases and protects the immune system.
This example would be a appeal to emotion since someone is convicing someone to eat oranges because it provides vitamin C and good for their health. Also, the conclusion is descriptive since it says that it is good for the body and health and it helps prevent diseases and protects the immune system, which makes it as a appeal to emotion fallacy.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
JUNK CARS...
1. My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
2. People do not like living next door to such a mess.
3. He never drives any of them.
4. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.
5. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Argument? Yes.
Conclusion: The neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Additional premises needed? If the neighbor owns old, beat up, leaky cars in his yard and doesn't drive nay of them, then he be forced to get rid of them since people do not like living next door to such a mess bcause it is bad for the neighborhood, and it decreases property values.
Identify any subargument: 2,3,4 and 5 are independent and support the conclusion, 1.
Good argument? No, it is a bad argument.
It is a bad argument since the conclusion is begging that the neighbor should get rid of his junk cars. The premises could be good but how could the writer know if the people do not like living right next to that neighbor's mess? And no one should be forced to get rid of their belongings since they have their own rights to whether they want to keep such things or not. Maybe they want to fix those old cars but don't have the money to do it yet. Plus, the old cars are in their yard. They could do whatever they want in their yard.
This exercise was useful since it gave me ideas on how to do determine whether an argument is good or not and how to explain it.
2. People do not like living next door to such a mess.
3. He never drives any of them.
4. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place.
5. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.
Argument? Yes.
Conclusion: The neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.
Additional premises needed? If the neighbor owns old, beat up, leaky cars in his yard and doesn't drive nay of them, then he be forced to get rid of them since people do not like living next door to such a mess bcause it is bad for the neighborhood, and it decreases property values.
Identify any subargument: 2,3,4 and 5 are independent and support the conclusion, 1.
Good argument? No, it is a bad argument.
It is a bad argument since the conclusion is begging that the neighbor should get rid of his junk cars. The premises could be good but how could the writer know if the people do not like living right next to that neighbor's mess? And no one should be forced to get rid of their belongings since they have their own rights to whether they want to keep such things or not. Maybe they want to fix those old cars but don't have the money to do it yet. Plus, the old cars are in their yard. They could do whatever they want in their yard.
This exercise was useful since it gave me ideas on how to do determine whether an argument is good or not and how to explain it.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Leadership
"Leadership can be defined s the exercise of interpersonal influence toward the attainment of goals. It consists of the two key terms direction and influence" according to O'hair and Wiemenn. They also state that leadership comes with providing direction to the team/group from the leader. Also, a leader should be able to influence his or her group/team members and have an impact on them. They provided four types of leadership: authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire.
Authoritarian leadership is characterized by the exercise of control by the leader without input from other group members. In most cases, the leader makes a decision and just deliver it to the group. This style produces faster decisions, but it results in lower group member satisfaction and commitement to the task.
Consultative leadership bases decisions upon the opinions or ideas of group members. This type of leader asks others for their opinions or ideas and then makes the final devision alone after considering this input. Leaders use this style when they lack the necessary information to make an effective decision.
Participative leadership involves a leader working with other group members to achieve a desired goal. This style is used when leaders work together with a group in solving a problem or performing a task.
They guide and facilitate but has no more influence over the outcome than does any other group member. Decisions made take longer to reach, mostly higher quality, result in greater satisfaction and elicit greater commitment than do decision made by any other leadership style.
Laissez-faire leadership style involves little or no direct leadership. The group simple proceeds with the task. "It has been consistently found to be the least satisfying and effective management style," according to the communication researcher Bass. This is the type of leader who, according to subordinates, stays out of the way, is difficult to find when there is a problem, communicates the absolute mininum for members to do their job, and if not bothered, won't bother the group.
To me, I think I fit the to be as a laissez-faire leader since I don't speak during group discussions until I am being asked for my opinion. Maybe because I am a shy type person since I don't communicate much to people I do not know well or do not know at all. But, I should change this trait of mine so I can be more effective as a group leader or member in group discussions and become a much better group leader or member for the group.
Authoritarian leadership is characterized by the exercise of control by the leader without input from other group members. In most cases, the leader makes a decision and just deliver it to the group. This style produces faster decisions, but it results in lower group member satisfaction and commitement to the task.
Consultative leadership bases decisions upon the opinions or ideas of group members. This type of leader asks others for their opinions or ideas and then makes the final devision alone after considering this input. Leaders use this style when they lack the necessary information to make an effective decision.
Participative leadership involves a leader working with other group members to achieve a desired goal. This style is used when leaders work together with a group in solving a problem or performing a task.
They guide and facilitate but has no more influence over the outcome than does any other group member. Decisions made take longer to reach, mostly higher quality, result in greater satisfaction and elicit greater commitment than do decision made by any other leadership style.
Laissez-faire leadership style involves little or no direct leadership. The group simple proceeds with the task. "It has been consistently found to be the least satisfying and effective management style," according to the communication researcher Bass. This is the type of leader who, according to subordinates, stays out of the way, is difficult to find when there is a problem, communicates the absolute mininum for members to do their job, and if not bothered, won't bother the group.
To me, I think I fit the to be as a laissez-faire leader since I don't speak during group discussions until I am being asked for my opinion. Maybe because I am a shy type person since I don't communicate much to people I do not know well or do not know at all. But, I should change this trait of mine so I can be more effective as a group leader or member in group discussions and become a much better group leader or member for the group.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Strong versus Valid Arguments
According to Epstein, an argument is valid if there is no possible way for its premises to be true and its conclusion false (at the same time). And an argument is strong if there is some way, some possiblity, for thits premises to be true and its conclusion false (at the same time).
For example:
All fishes swim.
Therefore, salmons swim.
This is a valid argument because the true premise leads to a true conclusion. We all believe that all fishes have a true nature skill to swim and since salmon is a kind of fish, then salmons swim. Even though, some fishes like mud-fish stay in the mud at times, they still swim.
Another example:
All Honda cars, after 1996 have VTEC engines.
Therefore, the next Honda car model will have a VTEC engine.
This is a strong argument because the premise is true because all Honda cars that are made after 1996 have VTEC engines. But, the conclusion could be possibly true or false because we do not know if Honda will be putting a VTEC engine or a new type of engine on the next Honda car model.
For example:
All fishes swim.
Therefore, salmons swim.
This is a valid argument because the true premise leads to a true conclusion. We all believe that all fishes have a true nature skill to swim and since salmon is a kind of fish, then salmons swim. Even though, some fishes like mud-fish stay in the mud at times, they still swim.
Another example:
All Honda cars, after 1996 have VTEC engines.
Therefore, the next Honda car model will have a VTEC engine.
This is a strong argument because the premise is true because all Honda cars that are made after 1996 have VTEC engines. But, the conclusion could be possibly true or false because we do not know if Honda will be putting a VTEC engine or a new type of engine on the next Honda car model.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Marley!
I'm assuming everyone has seen the movie Marley & Me because I'm going to use it as an example.Oh and Marley is Labrador Retriever.
All dogs know how to bark.
Marley is a dog.
Therefore, Marley knows how to bark.
The premises are plausible claims because we all know that barking is a true nature skill of all dogs, and Marley is a dog.
The premises and the conclusion have connection to each other. All dogs know how to bark and Marley being a dog leads to the conclusion of Marley knowing how to bark.
Since, Marley is a dog, then he knows how to bark because all dogs know how to bark. This is a valid argument because both premises and conclusion are true. However, there could be chance that the premise "Marley is a dog" to be wrong because Marley could be a cat, elephant, or something else if I didn't mention that Marley is Labrador Retriever. But, since I mentioned that Marley is a Labrador Retriever then it proves that Marley is a dog which leads to a good conclusion that Marley knows how to bark.
These plausible premises and valid argument prove that this is a good argument.
All dogs know how to bark.
Marley is a dog.
Therefore, Marley knows how to bark.
The premises are plausible claims because we all know that barking is a true nature skill of all dogs, and Marley is a dog.
The premises and the conclusion have connection to each other. All dogs know how to bark and Marley being a dog leads to the conclusion of Marley knowing how to bark.
Since, Marley is a dog, then he knows how to bark because all dogs know how to bark. This is a valid argument because both premises and conclusion are true. However, there could be chance that the premise "Marley is a dog" to be wrong because Marley could be a cat, elephant, or something else if I didn't mention that Marley is Labrador Retriever. But, since I mentioned that Marley is a Labrador Retriever then it proves that Marley is a dog which leads to a good conclusion that Marley knows how to bark.
These plausible premises and valid argument prove that this is a good argument.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Discussion: Q#3 Definitions
A definition is a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. It explains how to use a word or phrase. For example, "Handsome" means "having an attractive, well-proportioned, and imposing appearance" or "'good-looking", this is defining what handsome means. On the other hand, "My friend Shane is big." This is too vague. The word big could mean different things such as large, as in size, height, width, heavy, or grown-up/mature. Rather, the sentence should be "My friend Shane is as big as 220 lbs." or "My friend Shane is grown-up." This way is better and more understandable because it elaborates what the word "big" really means. One is heavy as in fat and the other is being mature and knowing better with things.
BTW, would this be good example for defnition, "My friend Shane is as big as a mini-van." ? LOL
BTW, would this be good example for defnition, "My friend Shane is as big as a mini-van." ? LOL
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Discussion: Q#2 Vague/Ambiguous Sentence
According to the Epstein book, a sentence is vague if there are so many ways to understand it that we can't settle on one of those without the speaker making it clearer.
Earlier today, my friends and I went to the mall and while we were walking around, we saw a group of females walking towards and right when they passed us by , one of my friend said, "Damn, that girl is hot."
What my friend said is vague because my other friends and I didn't know which girl he was talkin about because there were five of them, until we asked him which girl was he talkin about. It is vague because there were five girls and what my friend said was too broad. He didn't exactly point out which girl he was talking about.
Another vague is the part when my friend said hot. Hot could be possibly mean spicy. It could also mean as having a high temperature. But, what my friend really meant is that the girl is attractive.
Earlier today, my friends and I went to the mall and while we were walking around, we saw a group of females walking towards and right when they passed us by , one of my friend said, "Damn, that girl is hot."
What my friend said is vague because my other friends and I didn't know which girl he was talkin about because there were five of them, until we asked him which girl was he talkin about. It is vague because there were five girls and what my friend said was too broad. He didn't exactly point out which girl he was talking about.
Another vague is the part when my friend said hot. Hot could be possibly mean spicy. It could also mean as having a high temperature. But, what my friend really meant is that the girl is attractive.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Discussion: Q#1 Subjective and Objective Claims
A subjective claim is one based on emotions, feelings, or personal opinions. For example, a friend of mine has just recently watched the latest Star Trek movie. He said that it was the best Star Trek movie ever. I asked him if he has already watched all of the Star Trek movies and he answered no. His claim therefore is unfounded since he has no basis for comparison and can therefore not substantiate his claim. It just so happened that he liked the movie very much thus claiming it to be the best one ever.
An objective claim on the other hand is one based on facts and evidence. Last weekend, my brother and I were in Sacramento and he claims that it's colder there than here in San Jose. The thermometer confirms his claim and so do I.
An objective claim on the other hand is one based on facts and evidence. Last weekend, my brother and I were in Sacramento and he claims that it's colder there than here in San Jose. The thermometer confirms his claim and so do I.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
A little something about LRGeezy
Hello guys, hope everyone is having a good start of spring semester.
So a little something about me, I have only taken one communication class and that was Pubic Speaking for Native Speakers (Comm 20N). That class helped me get better on how to deliver speeches in front of people, but I'm still a little shy and get nervous at times when I give out speeches in front of people. Hopefully, this class will help me and make me a better writer, critical thinker and understands things better in the long run. Also, I have only taken one online class and that was last semester (fall 2010). It was a Nutrition class (NuFS) and I had to watch the lectures through videos online instead of going to class.
I go to San Jose State University and on my 3rd year of college now. I like to watch any type of sports, but I prefer basketball and football more. My favorite sports teams are San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Giants, Golden State Warriors and Boston Celtics. I play basketball and football with friends on our free time. I love to eat chicken and steak.
I'm not really good at blogging and introducing myself so this is it for now. I prefer people to ask me questions about me or anything. LOL
-LRGeezy
So a little something about me, I have only taken one communication class and that was Pubic Speaking for Native Speakers (Comm 20N). That class helped me get better on how to deliver speeches in front of people, but I'm still a little shy and get nervous at times when I give out speeches in front of people. Hopefully, this class will help me and make me a better writer, critical thinker and understands things better in the long run. Also, I have only taken one online class and that was last semester (fall 2010). It was a Nutrition class (NuFS) and I had to watch the lectures through videos online instead of going to class.
I go to San Jose State University and on my 3rd year of college now. I like to watch any type of sports, but I prefer basketball and football more. My favorite sports teams are San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Giants, Golden State Warriors and Boston Celtics. I play basketball and football with friends on our free time. I love to eat chicken and steak.
I'm not really good at blogging and introducing myself so this is it for now. I prefer people to ask me questions about me or anything. LOL
-LRGeezy
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A little something about LRGeezy
Hello guys, hope everyone is having a good start of spring semester.
So a little something about me, I have only taken one communication class and that was Pubic Speaking for Native Speakers (Comm 20N). That class helped me get better on how to deliver speeches in front of people, but I'm still a little shy and get nervous at times when I give out speeches in front of people. Hopefully, this class will help me and make me a better writer, critical thinker and understands things better in the long run. Also, I have only taken one online class and that was last semester (fall 2010). It was a Nutrition class (NuFS) and I had to watch the lectures through videos online instead of going to class.
I go to San Jose State University and on my 3rd year of college now. I like to watch any type of sports, but I prefer basketball and football more. My favorite sports teams are San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Giants, Golden State Warriors and Boston Celtics. I play basketball and football with friends on our free time. I love to eat chicken and steak.
I'm not really good at blogging and introducing myself so this is it for now. I prefer people to ask me questions about me or anything. LOL
-LRGeezy
So a little something about me, I have only taken one communication class and that was Pubic Speaking for Native Speakers (Comm 20N). That class helped me get better on how to deliver speeches in front of people, but I'm still a little shy and get nervous at times when I give out speeches in front of people. Hopefully, this class will help me and make me a better writer, critical thinker and understands things better in the long run. Also, I have only taken one online class and that was last semester (fall 2010). It was a Nutrition class (NuFS) and I had to watch the lectures through videos online instead of going to class.
I go to San Jose State University and on my 3rd year of college now. I like to watch any type of sports, but I prefer basketball and football more. My favorite sports teams are San Francisco 49ers, San Francisco Giants, Golden State Warriors and Boston Celtics. I play basketball and football with friends on our free time. I love to eat chicken and steak.
I'm not really good at blogging and introducing myself so this is it for now. I prefer people to ask me questions about me or anything. LOL
-LRGeezy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)