Bad Appeal to Common Belief

One concept in the class that we have covered so far that needs further discussion is bad appeal to common belief. The book states that bad appeal to common belief is “It’s usually a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it to. What the book didn’t cover is exactly what triggers a person to reason that way. I would say that bad appeal to common belief is basically relates to the old saying “If s/he jumped off a bridge, would you do it to?” That’s the question people should ask themselves when they reason about common beliefs. If I join this cult maybe I could be a part of something special. For example, I used Ku Klux Klan in my pasts blogs. A very descriptive website was http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/common_belief.htm This website was very helpful because it gave a description, an example, and it discussed the concept as well as gave it a classification.

First Assignment

The first course assignment was useful because we gained team experience. We had to plan in a short period of time when and where we were to meet up as well as who was to do what. I liked how my group and I clicked pretty well. We had to implement the different types of concepts that we have learned in our online class and gather them all together. For example, we had to state the major claims as well as the premise that support the main claim. We also had to individually state whether or not we agreed with the argument or not. We had to use the material from Epstein to basically analyze whether or not our editorial was strong, valid or weak. It was somewhat hard to match everyone’s opinions and make everything concise and coherent. Overall the experience was great and I bonded with my group well.

Chapter 8

What I have learned from Chapter 8 is a direct way of reasoning implemented with general claim words such as no, all, only, and some. These words can be used differently depending on the argument. All would be used to effectively direct reason. For example, all basketball players are quick, George is a basketball player, so George is quick. Direct way of reasoning creates valid arguments. The general claim words such as no, all, only and some could all be used to create valid arguments as well. Another example would be no dogs eat cats, chip is a dog, so he doesn’t eat cats. An example of only would be only the strongest survive, Chris is the strongest, therefore he survives. These words are used to designate the direction in which your argument is heading. It is important to use the right word so you are not misunderstood and your argument is coherent.

Refuting With Bad Arguments

One thing that I have learned in chapter 7 is different ways to refute that make for bad arguments. Some examples stated in the book are phony refutations and ridicule. Phony refutations consist of claims that are weak and add false premises to the argument. The book states that a person may also follow a slippery slope and mistake it for reducing to the absurd. When a person follows a slippery slope, they add one false premise that leads to the next. Another way to refute that makes for a bad argument is using ridicule. Although for some it may sound appealing and amusing, it makes for a very illogical way of arguing. It also is a weak and useless way to reason. One example would be when my friend and I were arguing whether or not we should have our friends stay at my place for the night or his. So we were stating the costs and benefits of each place and I stated that my house was small, cozy and it was more comfortable. My friend decided to use ridicule to sway his argument by saying, “If you want to stay in a small cramped apartment that you can barely move in, then stay at his place.” Although it may sound reasonable at first, he just tried to win the argument by ridiculing my own argument and belittling my apartment.

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 is very informative chapter in a sense that it is basically the introduction to counter arguments during a debate type argument. In this chapter I learned about raising objections and refuting an argument. When we raise an objection, we are trying to convince others that the argument that was raised by our opponent is a faulty one. We show how the argument is weak, such as stating whether or not it is subjective or showing whether the argument is dubious or not. I also learned in this chapter that there are two ways of refuting an argument. There is refuting directly and refuting indirectly. Refuting directly consist of the method that we show the premise is dubious, show the argument to be weak, and show the conclusion to be false. (pg 149) We use indirect refutation in the case that we cannot exactly show that the premise is false but we can sense that the argument is weak or faulty.

Chapter 6

What I have learned from Chapter 6 is considering alternatives such as compound claims and the contradictory of a claim. I also learned about conditional and their contradictories. A compound claim is a claim that is compiles 2 or more claims and is seen as just one claim. For example, “I can either go to school or stay home and sleep.” The indicator word would be the word or. Within each of these claims consists of alternatives, which are all claims that make up a compound claim. The contradictory of a claim is a claim that is the complete opposite of another claim. For example a claim would be “I am a Warriors fan.” The contradictory of this claim would be “I am not a Warriors fan.” Conditional claims are claims that are perceived as if and then statements. For example, “If I don’t go to school today, then I will fail my quiz.” The contradictory of a claim instead would be an if, but not then. For example, “If I don’t go to school, I still won’t fail my quiz.” Knowing how to use compound claims and conditional claims will make your arguments much more effective and will help you see weak arguments.

Mistaking the person for the argument

The example that I am writing about is mistaking the person for the claim. Basically this means that you are disregarding the claim not because of invalidity, but because you are judging the person who said it. One example would be to not give tax breaks to Americans just because Barack Obama signed the initiative and because he is a Democrat. Mistaking the person for the argument is definitely something that we see in politics. It is definitely something that hinders the growth of our nation because politicians are making biased decisions based solely on whose party is on whose. Many Democrats would believe that tax breaks would be very beneficial to the nation, but Republicans would vote against it because Democrats would propose it. This is an illogical way of reasoning. Politicians would reject the argument solely on one reason; because the other side is getting a bit stronger. This really affects the nation as a whole because people in power make decisions based on mistaking the person for the argument.