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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)