concepts

I would like to talk about to concepts that have stuck with me throughout my entire semester. One would be the strawman fallacy and calling in your debts. One of the reasons why these stuck with me is because they both have really distinct titles. The strawman fallacy could also be an analogy to how fake or how false the statement is. The strawman is basically when you restate someone’s argument and modify it to sound fallacious or weaker. It is basically putting words in someone’s mouth. This argument stuck to me because it is such a common example that occurs during everyday life. Another example that is very common is calling in your debts. This is an effective device to sway emotion and get people to do certain things. This is what I liked about the concepts that I learned in class. I was able to relate them to everyday life and this is what made it a little easier to understand.

Class evaluation

My favorite thing about this class was having it online, which made it convenient for me to just stay home and do work. I was able to actually focus a little bit more because I was either at home or in the library and I had no classroom distractions. Also, if I ever got bored of reading the material I could always just take a break. Another thing that I enjoyed about this class was that I had a group to meet up with and I was able to actually interact with other people and work on projects. Something that I didn’t like about the class was that I would constantly have to look on the web page to see if there was any updates and sometimes I would be just too busy to check. I feel that this class could be improved by having face to face office hours or maybe even video chat. Other than that, the class was very enjoyable.

What I learned in Class

During this semester, I learned a lot of terms and concepts related to critical thinking such as strong vs. valid arguments, how to test for a good argument, I learned about claims, how to work in a group, and a lot more. I feel that the most valuable lesson that I have learned in this whole time I was in this class was team building. In the beginning of class I had to meet with a group of people that I didn’t know to complete one common goal. We had to use synergy in order to find the right times to meet up, accomplish tasks and resolve conflict. Within our groups, we learned different leadership styles as well as how to effectively lead a group discussion. We also learned that participative leadership style was the most effective because it gets everyone involved. Also, the work was distributed evenly and we were able carry our own weight.

Mission Critical Statement

The mission critical statement Website is useful because it contains various amounts of arguments and definitions for arguments. The Website includes basic parts of an argument and basic relations, analysis of arguments, Fallacies and non-rational persuasion, and other common fallacies. There are many terms that we have learned in the class so far that appear on the web page. For example the conjunction and and the disjunction or. This is one very basic concept that has been introduced in our previous classes. One of the categories that we were not introduced to in class was appeal to indirect consequences. Within that category we have the idea of wishful thinking. This concept is a concept that is often used in comedies in my opinion. Wishful thinking is basically a thought which on a positive note tries to distract the other person from the issue. I found the example in the yellow box very effective. The answer was “I’m not going to let Joe’s actions affect his promotion. After all wouldn’t be better if there was no sexual harassment in the workplace?” I found this a great example of wishful thinking.

Cause and Effect Website

The Cause and Effect Website reading was useful and very insightful. It demonstrated how people think when tracing back from an incident to the cause of an incident. The example was who was responsible for the car accident. The objective is to pinpoint exactly what was the cause of the accident. The question is, was it the bicycles fault for the accident or was it the fault of the person slamming the breaks? The strength of the argument relies on three main factors. According to the website, the first reason is how acceptable the implied comparison is. This basically means that we need to compare to other experiences with this instance in order to come to a conclusion. The second reason is how likely is the case for the causation which means how reasonable is it to say that A happened because of B. In this case, how likely is it to say that it was the bicycles fault that the driver immediately stepped on their breaks. The last claim according to the text is how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is meaning how credible is it to say that the bicycle was the only reason why there was an accident. Overall this reading was interesting.

Different Types of Resoning Examples

1.Reasoning by Analogy
Premise 1: I am in the comm40 class that is required for graduation.
Premise 2: Robert has not taken the comm40 class.
Conclusion: Robert cannot graduate

2.Sign Reasoning
I have noticed that I have not done all three of my blogs within 12 hours apart.
I will be sure to do that next week to make up for my mistakes this week.

3.Casual Reasoning
Premise 1: I feel very lazy at the moment.
Premise 2: I wasn’t able to do my homework.
Conclusion: Therefore my day was not productive.

4.Reasoning by Criteria
I have noticed that you have not fundraised enough money to cover the costs of your club expenses. You need to sell more items.

5.Reasoning by Example
You should study at least 3 hours a day for that class to do well. I noticed that people who spend more than three hours studying for that class get A’s in the class.

6.Inductive
The store has been opening at 9 a.m. everyday for the past 6 months. The store will open at 9 a.m.

7.Deductive
Premise 1: All Giants fans were at the Giants parade.
Premise 2: I am a Giants fan.
Conclusion: I was at the parade.

Fallacy of Competition

One concept that I have found useful is fallacy of composition. This fallacy states that whatever is the truth about an individual also stays true for the group. This is a very common fallacy. For example, the school should raise the tuition percentage just as the books that we should buy should be raised as well. Here lies an analogy between school and books. The first argument states that the school should raise tuition. One would ask why. The answer would be to cover costs from students because lack of funding from the government. However, the percentage price of books should not be raised because it just doesn’t make sense. Just because books and school are related, both prices shouldn’t be raised to match the other. It would not make any sense for schools to raise book prices because they are trying to keep low prices to entice students to shop at their store. I felt that fallacy of composition is a common fallacy which can be easily noticed.

Appeal to Spite

Appeal to spite is a very controversial yet powerful method that people use to sway others emotions. The book states that appeal to spite is a “hope for revenge”. I feel that appeal to spite is very controversial because it is solely based on emotion yet it is so common. For example, one of my friends (let’s say Jane) didn’t go to a party for my other friend (John), When Jane wanted John to help her with homework, John refused because he felt that Jane wasn’t being a good friend. I feel that appeal to spite is a very accepted practice especially in America. There are countless of action movies that base themselves on this principal. It is generally an accepted practice in our culture to take revenge. The book states that the principal invokes “two wrongs make a right.” I feel like appeal to spite is an effective way to invoke a strong argument, yet it is hard to distinguish whether it may be plausible.

Calling In Your Debts

One leader that I know in a student organization uses the method of calling in debts as an argument to convince others. This leader gives guilt trips to the members of the members of the organization. One example would be when one member didn't want to show up to an event. That member explained to her that she needed to go to a family party. The leader immediately stated "remember the time I helped you get that project done?" This is an example of callin in your debts. The member thought about it and decided to go to the event. With calling in your debts, the user uses a guilt trip to force the other person into a compromising situation. "Should I go to the family party and look like a jerk not helping out someone who helped me out?" Although this is an effective method of swaying emotion and reasoning, it is not an effective motivational tool. Calling in your debts feeds off negativity and creates fear within people if a person uses it too much.

Appeal to Emotion

According to the text, appeal to emotion is basically an argument that makes you react a certain way because of the way you feel. Emotion is a major aspect of reasoning. Without emotion we cannot reason effectively, but we cannot let it completely control our reasoning. The aspect of appeal to emotion that hits me the most is appealing to fear. Whenever I hear about thefts, rapes or murders in the news I am greatly affected. When I hear about these things I think about my own family and loved ones. This is why I feel that appeal to fear is an effective tool for arguments as well as an effective way to sway people’s viewpoints. As a student, I am fearful of what the politicians who are elected into office are going to do with our public education system. Recently, an effective commercial about Meg Whitman played on the air. It pretty much showed her saying the same things that Arnold Schwarzenegger has said when he ran for governor. This was an effective strategy because voters are fearful of candidates who can’t change California. Many voters like me are looking for reform and looking for new fresh candidates to change California. Appeal to emotion is a very persuasive tool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSLoTJySZmg

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.

Advertising and the Internet

Advertising on the internet is important for sites such as ebay, amazon, and craigslist are utilized by regular people who want to get rid of regular things. In my post, I will be talking about craigslist and how I usually go about evaluating ads. I've been dealing on craigslist for about 2 years now, both buying and selling various items. I have become an expert at seeking fake ads, scammers,and spammers on craigslist. I regularly search for cars on craigslist, because I usually finds good deals on cars because I don't have to deal with dealers and I could make really good deals. So recently I've been searching for cars, specifically a camaro. I recently saw this ad with a camaro that seemed too good of a deal. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" as the old cliche says. The first claim that I rejected for this ad was that it was a camaro z28, as the title says. This claim contradicts a claim that has been made by a visual in the ad. I have reason to believe that this car is not a Z28 model, but rather an SS, as the pictures say. I am relying on personal experience with this ad because I've come across many ads like this before and I've owned many cars like this. The second claim that I rejected was that this car is being sold in San Francisco, as the title says. I use my background of Kelly Blue Book to analyze the price that this owner has set. He is selling this car for $3,700, when in actuality this car could be sold for around $10,000-$12,000. This fact brings me to the conclusion that the owner is very desperate or that this online ad is a fake. The likelihood of this being a fake ad is much greater because who would give up $7,000? Another detail I noticed is the picture looks like it is in a farm setting, and the ad is placed in San Francisco. This is an example of a Nigerian scheme in which the person who posts the ad makes an agreement with a person. That person sends a check to the seller and the seller promises to ship the car to that person. As stupid as it sounds, a lot of people fall for schemes like these. I would usually email people and gauge the situation to see if they actually want to meet in person. If they don't, then usually the deal is not legitimate. Using personal experience as well as other reputable sources such as kelly blue book, I am able to see if the claims that people make in online advertisements are true or not.

Repairing Arguments

I go to school. In class I take notes. Therefore I receive an education.
This a solid argument that needs minimal repair. Although the argument is sound, there are a few minor flaws with this statement. After the statement “I take notes”, the argument immediately jumps from taking notes to receiving an education. Receiving an education means different things to different people. To some, receiving an education could mean memorizing and passing their weekly quiz. To other, receiving an education could mean receiving their diploma. So you can see the one faces when addressing this argument. Adding a little more specificity and tweaking the argument will make the argument stronger. For example, “I got to school and take notes. These notes help me learn everything and pass the classes I need to graduate. Therefore I receive an education.” This statement is more plausible and sound. This example addresses the questions that I had earlier about what receiving an education means. Instead of making the reader decide what receiving an education means, you are telling them. If you pay attention to detail and add more supporting premises then you will definitely beef up your argument and repair any type of holes in your argument. Of course the argument isn’t perfect, but you will see the flow of your ideas and they will transition evenly, so that everyone sees your disposition. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion and would seem plausible to any reader reading it.

Bad Appeal to Common Belief

Bad appeal to common belief is the idea that since everyone in a group does it then it is acceptable to do or believe. When I think of this fallacy I often see it as a negative yet very assuring way to convince someone. This reminds me of the old rhetorical saying that parents ask their children, “If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?” Of course not! I see this type of fallacy everywhere. One example of bad appeal to common belief would be something that I saw in high school. Underage drinking is something that spread like wildfire at my high school. Many students felt that since other kids were doing it than it was alright to do, even though it is illegal. Many kids would convince others that it was alright to do because everyone was doing it. Another example of this type of fallacy having a negative effect would be the era of the civil rights movement. Many whites in the South were being prejudice to African Americans because everyone else was doing it. There were many people, especially Ku Klux Klan leaders, who fed off the fear of average white citizens and used this type of fallacy to gain support for their empty cause. Bad appeal to common belief is a bad yet powerful type of fallacy because it can sometimes be effective. If we arm ourselves by learning how to think rationally, then we can avoid being victims of fast talkers, swindlers, and those who use different types of fallacies like bad appeal to common belief.