What I've learned

I have learned so much this semester. This class really taught me how to depict and form valid arguments. After every lesson, I would be able to notice every time people had weak arguments or used fallacies. It was very eye opening to learn what makes up a weak argument and how frequent they are made. For instance, the book used examples of fallacies that were very relative to me, so I realized that sometimes when I reason, I am using fallacies or making an invalid argument. This class also taught me how to work very well with a group. Staying in the same group was nice because we learned each other’s strengths and weaknesses. The final project (group facilitation) was very helpful because it was like a real life situation that we had to deal with. It also was interesting to see our peers reasoning and then picking apart their arguments in the analysis. Overall, this class was very helpful and I’m glad I took it.

Cause and effect

I think the most important part about a cause and effect argument is how to properly understand them, and use them. For example, it is good to know that when we argue from cause to produce effect, we are using our inductive reasoning skills. On the contrary, if we argue from an effect and try to produce the cause, we are using our deductive reasoning skills.
It is also very important that we do not use any faulty logic in our reasoning. For example, we can’t base conclusions on information that we aren’t sure is true. This means, we can’t just guess or base our thoughts on coincidence because it is not concrete detail.
Another thing that is very important is to understand that direct causes are the best thing to focus on. These are also known as effects. We want to focus on direct causes that relate to each other rather than picking random and unrelated ones.

Reading 2

This reading was very helpful. I wish the book was as detailed as this reading. For example, the appeal to emotion was much easier to understand. They outlined each type of appeal to emotion and gave examples of each. I feel as though the book didn’t do that as well. But either way, I now have a greater understanding of all the appeal to emotion with a combination of the book and the website. The same thing goes for the explanation of fallacies. This web page went into depth about lots of different types and did a much greater job than the book. My knowledge of these topics has increased highly after reading this website. It helped a lot how each subcategory had its own link. Rather than having one big page with brief definitions, each different topic had a separate page and explicit definition. I honestly wish I read this more towards the beginning of the semester. Good stuff!

The reading on Causal Arguments

The main thing I liked about this reading is how it discussed law. My dad is a lawyer and so I have grown up with having to argue with a professional arguer. This reading, however, was very interesting to me because I have always wondered how lawyers think and argue so fluently in a court of law. Causal reasoning is basically what lawyers use a lot when trying to when a case. They go over the “cause and effect” of a situation and then try and argue the validity. The reading concluded with giving us three main pointers in causal reasoning. The first was to question how acceptable the implied comparison is. Second, we must question how likely the case of the cause is. And third, we must question how credible the “only significant difference” or “only significant commonality” claim is. The difference and commonality part are what help make the argument valid and that is what we always see lawyers arguing about in court to win their case. I enjoyed the reading and hope you guys did too ;P

number 2 blog (deductive and inductive reasoning)

I was confused on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. I went onto http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm to get more information on this topic. They explain that “deductive reasoning arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalizations. Inductive reasoning takes events and makes generalizations.”
Basically, we take what we know about something and use that to try and make a conclusion. For example:
If all fraternity guys are losers, then the guys in Delta Upsilon should be losers as well. But since they are players and not losers, we can not conclude that all fraternity guys are losers. This is an example of deductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is basically the opposite of deductive reasoning. This is where we make observations about something. For example, if a man bought 4 different types of beer at a bar and they all cost 6 dollars, then his inductive reasoning would lead him to assume that all beers at that bar are going to cost 6 dollars.

Types of reasoning

Reasoning by analogy:
Andy is a skateboarder and he crashed.
Wesley is a skateboarder so we will crash.
Just because Andy crashed, doesn’t mean Wesley will crash.
Sign Reasoning:
When there’s a cut, there is blood.
When there’s blood, there’s a cut.
If you are cut, you will bleed. But if there are numerous ways that blood could be present, so we can’t assume there is a cut just because there is blood. It could be a nosebleed or anything.
Causal Reasoning:
Saying that weed causes people to get high or that getting high is caused by smoking weed is causal reasoning because it is the relationship of the two to cause and effect or to effect and cause each other.
Criteria Reasoning:
Sometimes it’s good to try new things. We have never eaten sushi, so maybe we should try it.
Reasoning by example:
You should not cheat on your girlfriend. I had a friend who cheated on his girlfriend all the time and then she found out and they were both emotionally messed up for a long time.
Inductive reasoning:
My teacher has taken attendance every day. My teacher will also take attendance tomorrow.
Deductive reasoning:
All full time students have to take at least 12 units.
Val is a full time student. So he is taking at least 12 units.

#3: Analogies in Law

I will be discussing analogies in the law. First, we should know what an analogy is. As I found in the dictionary, “an analogy is a similarity between like features of two things, on which acomparison may be based: the analogy between the heartand a pump”.These analogies are presented in a very detailed manor so that we can carefully analyze them as arguments. This makes them more serious and reliable than other arguments. Law is very serious but laws can be vague at the same time. Here is an example from the book:
Basically, the Supreme Court has decided that it is a constitutional right for a doctor to stop giving medical treatment to someone who is going to die if that individual wishes so. This is basically saying that it is okay to assist someone to commit suicide. This is an example of two similar situations that are an example of analogies in Law.

appeal to fear

Appeal to fear is used a lot to really get people to feel a certain way about something. This usually makes people feel angry as well. An example of this would be like telling someone: “Dogs bite, they have rabies and have been known to kill at times as well.” Then making the argument: We need to get rid of dogs because they are dangerous. I know this is an outrageous example but it is just showing how we can use fear as an emotion to spark people to feel a certain way about something. Sometimes it can also start with facts that make you feel fear, but then also make you feel angry because they state facts that upset you. Like the one in the book talking about how a guy has raped and killed and got away with it. This sparks fear but it also makes you angry as well.

Appeal to Emotion excercise

4. A feel good argument
Yes officer I was speeding. But I was only going five miles over the speed limit. This would be my first speeding ticket and I always abide traffic laws. I slipped up this once because my car does not have cruise control so I have to constantly look down at the speedometer so see how fast I’m going. Since I was going downhill I lost track for a second and accidently went over the speed limit by only five miles an hour. I’m sorry but I have always followed the laws and I don’t think it is fair that you give me this ticket.
This would be a feel-good argument because I want to feel good about myself and make the officer possible pity me and not give me a ticket. Situations happen like this all the time but are a way of arguing with appeal to emotion.

Appeal To Emotion (Spite)

An appeal to emotion is basically when someone makes an argument because they actually have certain feelings on the certain topic. This means that it is prescriptive because it comes from opinion and someone’s personal view instead of a fact based argument. There are several different types of appeal to emotion such as appeal to fear, pity, spite and vanity. The one that caught my attention here is appeal to spite. This is basically where someone is holding onto a grudge and uses that in their argument. I think this is personally wrong but people seem to do it often. An example of this would be:
"I would save you from drowning Phil, but last week you snitched me out to the cops."
This shows that the person making the statement is holding something personal against Phil, therefore, he will not help him. This is morally wrong and I can’t stand when people do things like this. Hope this helps ;P

Further Research

There was a part in Chapter 5 section D that was called “confusing possibility with plausibility” and I didn’t really understand it. The book didn’t give an example of what they each are so I still am confused on the difference. So, I looked up the definitions for us and will try and make an example of each. I found each of these definitions in the Merriam Webster dictionary:
Possible- being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization
Plausible-
a.) superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious
b.) appearing worthy of belief
It's possible that you are correct = I don't know if you are correct, but you might be.
It's plausible that you are correct = It's reasonable to think that you are correct, so you probably are.
Basically, plausibility is what we use when we are critically thinking and reasoning; and possibility is just a way of measuring something without looking into it as much.

Group Projects

I really liked both of the projects. We learned how to work in groups and how to apply what we’ve learned rather than just knowing about it. It was also nice to be able to actually meet people in the class because it is online. But I really liked the second project. It allowed us to take what we’ve learned about claims and critical thinking and actually use it. My group chose PETA and we worked as a team to go through their website and pick it apart in terms of “locating, retrieving, organizing, analyzing, synthesizing and communicating. My specific task was to go through and find all the concealed claims. This was cool because I didn’t know what they were before so not only did I learn about them, but I also got to look for them on a professional website. I have enjoyed both projects and look forward to the third.

chapter 8

This chapter really goes into detail about how important word choice is in making valid arguments. In section A, the book goes into depth about words like ‘some’ and ‘all’. Basically, people are too vague with their choice of words. The thing I learned most from this section was how to properly form claims and their contradictions. This can be found on page 162 of the book. An example from everyday life would be as follows:
CLAIM
All dogs can swim.
CONTRADICTORY
Not every dog can swim.
Section B also discusses how important word choice is, but in terms of within the argument. This is shown real well on page 164 in variable form but I will give an example as well:
VALID
All dogs can swim.
KeyKey is a dog.
So KeyKey swims.
WEAK
All dogs can swim.
KeyKey can swim.
So KeyKey is a dog.
See, we only changed one part, but it is so important in determining the strength of the argument.

Chapter 6 Section B: Part 3-Valid and weak forms of arguments using conditionals

I will be discussing valid forms of arguments using conditionals. Remember, a conditional claim is “one that can be rewritten as an ‘if…..then….’ claim that must have the same truth-value.” There are two forms of arguments that are valid using conditionals. These are direct and indirect. A direct example of a valid reasoning with conditionals can be described as “If A, then B. It is A. So then it is B.” For example:
If you punch Jacob, he’s going to punch you back.
You punched Jacob.
So He punched you back.
This is valid because it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
An indirect example is the exact opposite. “If A, then B. It is not A. So it is not B.” For example:
If you punch Jacob, he’s going to punch you back.
You didn’t punch Jacob.
So He didn’t punch you.
These are the two ways to form an argument using conditionals. Hope that helps a little bit!

Chapter 7

2). Please discuss, in detail, what you learned from reading Chapter 7. Discuss at least 2 things you learned.
Chapter 2 discusses objections and different ways to refute an argument. I learned quite a bit this chapter though. The first thing I learned is how to answer every objection. Every time someone brings up a good point(objection), it is your job as the one making the argument to counter or answer it. For example:
Sean: We need to get more alcohol.
McGavin: We already have some.
Sean: Yeah, but there are girls coming over and they will drink some.
McGavin: So?
Sean: We will run out once they drink ours, so we should get more.
See, here Sean is raising objections which forces McGavin to answer them.
Another thing I learned about is using ridicule. The only problem with ridicule is that it doesn’t do anything to benefit the argument but rather just ends it. For example:
Sean: I hate girls. They all are all backstabbing b*tches.
McGavin: Why cuz you’re ex girl cheated on you? That doesn’t make them all backstabbing.
Sean: Yes it does. They are all the same.
McGavin: Yea, you should probably just turn gay then.
Here, McGavin doesn’t feel like arguing with Sean so he simply ends the argument by using ridicule.

Chapter 6

I learned a lot about how claims can be combined and have counter claims or negations. For instance, compound claims are “one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim.” In my own zesty tell ‘em words, that means it is made up of two different statements within one claim. For example, if I said, “Andy skateboarded to Taco Bell or some other fast food place.” These are two different claims because one claim says Andy skated to Taco Bell. The other claim says Andy skated to some other fast food place.
There are also contradictions to claims which are defined in the text as “a claim that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances.” This is pretty basic but an example would be “Andy has red hair” and the contradiction (or negation) would be “Andy does not have red hair.”
These are two of the topics discussed in the chapter but there are a couple others as well. Hope these examples helped a little bit. Later.

Chapter 5 Section B: Personal Experiences

I chose to talk about the criteria for accepting or rejecting claims. I will try to give my opinion as well as possible although I am still slightly confused and just got back from the homecoming tailgate. Go Spartans! Anyway, the best way to find information that is reliable is to trust ourselves and our own personal experiences that we have already encountered in life. As the book says, "our most reliable source of information about the world is our own experience." It is important to trust yourself because that is honestly the only person you can trust. On the other hand, the book uses a good example of when NOT to trust your own experience when talking about eyewitness. It is true because when something happens real quick like a criminal punching you in the face, it is going to be really difficult to get a good enough look to be sure that you can trust what you saw. Nonetheless, our own experiences are usually the best way to judge if we can accept a claim or not. The book sums this up the best:
-We accept a claim if we know it is true from our own experience.
-We reject a claim if we know it is false from our own experience.
EXCEPTIONS:
-We have good reason to doubt our memory or our perception.
-The claim contradicts other experiences of ours, and there is a good argument against the claim

Advertisement

http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org/u/Mahayana/2009/9/5/ExtenZe-for-Women-no-actually-still-just-men
This ad is for women’s extenze. It is geared towards women and “electrifying their orgasms and revved up libido.” I disagree with this advertisement for a few reasons. First, for an argument to pass or be good, it has to provide good reason to believe the premises to be true. I don’t believe it’s true because nowhere in the ad do they provide scientific reasoning as to why it would work. Also, the book provides three reasons about whether to believe a claim: “Accept it, reject it, or suspend it.” I’m rejecting it because I believe it is false. Based on past experiences, I have seen many advertisements claim to do something but then in a year or so a scientific source proves that it is bullshit and most likely will do some type of damage to the consumer. Although this product could be legit, I personally don’t agree with it and therefore reject it.

Repairing an argument

“I swim every day so I’m in good shape.”
This argument is on its way to being good but is missing a necessary premise. The missing premise is “Swimming is very healthy and gets you in good shape.” This is repairing the argument because: it makes it stronger, the added premise is plausible and would seem plausible to whom I’m speaking to, and the premise is more plausible than the conclusion. We can also add an indicator word “therefore,” to let us know the conclusion is coming. Now the argument would look like this:
“I swim every day. Swimming is very healthy and gets you in good shape. Therefore, I’m in good shape.”
This is a strong argument now because the premises are very plausible and definitely set up the conclusion. However, there are factors that could prove this false. For instance, what speed are we swimming? How many laps are being swam? Things like that could change whether or not an individual is in good shape. Nonetheless, most people who swim every day are going to be in pretty good shape.

Slippery Slope Fallacy (Content Fallacy)

The book doesn't go into very much detail about the specific fallacies so I did a little extra research as well. But I still couldn't find a very concrete definition of a content fallacy so if you understand it well please leave me a post with your interpretation. Anyways, the slippery slope fallacy is when someone assumes that one statement directly follows another statement. And when they do this, they do it without even making an argument of how or why the statement should follow. For instance, if I were to say, "I need to break up with my girlfriend. If I don't, she will probably cheat on me." This is a slippery slope because there is no argument or stated reasoning for me to assume she will probably cheat on me. The website nizkor.org stated the following:
"This sort of 'reasoning' is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another."
An argument like this cannot be valid. Remember, for an argument to be valid, it has to be impossible for the conclusion to be false and the premises true. The slippery slope fallacy is invalid because even if the premises are true, jumping to an assumed conclusion is false. Nizkor.org did a good job of showing this in a variable form:
1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.