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.

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."

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:

1. 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.
2. 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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.