Interesting from Ch. 14

What I found interesting from chapter 14 was the basic idea of generalizing. It caught my attention because we use generalizing almost every day, similar to every other concept we've read from the text. From the book, it says that generalizing is when we conclude a claim about a group (the population) from a claim about some part of it (the sample). The text also says that when we generalize, we make arguments. Therefore, our generalizations are open to criticisms and oppositions. A specific example about generalizations are ones that lead to stereotypes. Stereotypes about Asians being bad drivers or smart students are derived by generalizations made by observing small samples. Some people may have gone to schools where Asians are at the tops of their classes, therefore strengthening their assumptions that all Asians are smart. Some may see reckless Asian drivers and assume that all Asians must drive the same way. Overall, generalizations can be good because they help us to interpret data or anticipate what's most likely to happen but they also have their cons.

Most/Least favorite things about the class

My most favorite thing about the class was that it was an online one. I didn't have to worry about making it fit with my other class schedules nor did I have to rush to get to this class. I liked how we had a week to do our discussion questions so there wasn't any rush to get them done. Interacting with the rest of the class was also interesting to me because I had never done so before through an online class.

My least favorite thing about the class was the group projects. I didn't have a problem doing them and I can't really complain because they're part of college basically. It was just so difficult to meet in person with our other group members because we had entirely different schedules followed by work and other commitments.

What could be improved about this class is maybe reforming the group project process. In other words, maybe in the beginning, group projects should be brought up so that many of the students can anticipate what's to happen. I think group meetings should be limited to online interaction (AIM, FB, ETC.), just because it would seem more appropriate, given this is an online course. Overall, I liked the class though some parts (like the group projects) made it more difficult to balance out my schedule. 

What I have learned...

From this class, I learned that online classes aren't so easy, haha. I assumed that all I needed to do was read and answer discussion questions with ease. But it was actually more difficult than I thought because it required thinking critically. In other words, you can't accept things the way they look or seem; you actually have to dig deeper and analyze people, places, events, etc. Besides learning not to anticipate that an online class would be easy to take, I have also learned about many concepts that are part of every day life, especially mine. For example, the concept of violating the principle of rational discussion helped me to familiarize myself with the defense mechanisms I use when I argue. To be more specific, I often use the Strawman defense; I put words in people's mouths to make it seem like they're saying something more worse than they really are. Something that also stayed with me throughout this class was the idea that our personal experiences are our best forms of knowledge; we can't always depend on what we're told or taught to believe in is right or accepted.

Interesting About Cause and Effect

What I found interesting about the chapter is that if a cause is true, then the effect cannot be false. To break it down more into detail, the example used from the text is "Spot's barking caused Dick to wake up." What's already established is that Spot's barking woke Dick up (true) so Dick's waking up because of Spot's barking cannot be false. What is already understood is that Spot's barking is the main cause of waking the person up so there is no other obvious reason for Dick to wake up. Causal claims are made almost every day by everyone. An example from the text is "Smoking causes cancer." I know I make these kind of claims on a daily basis, though I'm not always aware of doing so. Things that I say that are causal claims are "I didn't get any sleep, so I'm tired." As usual, examples from the text are what I unconsciously use every day.

Useful Information From The Mission Critical Website

What I found useful about the Mission Critical website was that it talked about how statements and other forms of sentences can be broken down to mean ambiguous things. For example, a person can say "I like good food." This can mean more than one thing: all food is good, everything I like to eat is good, etc. The website also talks about how some sentences can be worded differently but can also mean the same thing. An example would be "Some apples are red" or "some red things are apples." Also in regards to vague and ambiguous sentences, I learned that vague sentences can be elaborated more on while ambiguous sentences can have more than one interpretation. Vague sentences are not clear in context and ambiguous sentences can have at least two specific meanings. Overall, I felt that this website presented most of the concepts we have been reading in our texts and provides good examples.

Cause and Effect Website

What I found useful about the cause and effect was that it basically presented three different ways to look at a situation. It showed that there is no black or white to a situation; there are gray areas as well. I found the website useful because it used a real-life situation that could relate to almost anyone. I learned that situations can be broken down into such small details, that they may completely change the opinions of others. For example, the website talked about how a bike rider had to swerve onto the traffic lane to avoid hitting the truck blocking the bike lane and doing so caused a driver to brake suddenly. The driver hitting the brakes then caused a rear-end collision. A person could think that the driver was not at fault for the accident because he or she had no choice but to brake suddenly. But then a lawyer defending the person who rear-ended the first driver could argue that the first driver has a history of braking so suddenly that it has caused accidents in the past or that person's lawyer could argue that the person who rear-ended his or her client has a history of tail-gating. There are always many sides to a story that in most cases, there is no one right answer. I thought the website made this clear and presented the idea really well.

Interesting From Chapter 12

Judging Analogies caught my attention, especially the examples from the chapter. The example of outlawing gay marriage because it goes against the traditional acceptance of a marriage between a man and a woman was followed by the analogy of making divorce against the law because this also goes against the sanctity of marriage. Because the first analogy was presented, it was refuted by another analogy that implemented the same type of reasoning about marriage and what it stands for. Sure, marriage is traditionally accepted between a man and a woman but divorce is also against the idea. So why should gay marriage be considered illegal but divorce legal? Gay marriage calls for the same equal rights of a traditional marriage and it is primarily based on love between two people, yet it is not entirely accepted in society? Divorce is against the sanctity of marriage. It seems hypocritical to condemn something based on love and accept something that makes marriage seem like something that's easy to get out of. These two analogies are good ones because they are both based on the same idea. If this is wrong, then this must be wrong.

Difficult To Understand

Overall, all of the reasonings seemed easy to understand but if I had to pick the most difficult out of the list, I would choose reasoning by criteria. I found this reasoning to be the most difficult to understand, even though I just established that all of them seemed easy to understand, because the link on the professor's website was a little vague. I only understood it after I read examples from the link given. I guess I found it more difficult to understand out of the list because its title seemed the most vague. Everything else seemed straightforward. By establishing legitimate reasoning through criteria, it will help to make logical decisions based on this criteria. It is something that I had to read a couple of times in order to properly understand it but other than this one type of reasoning, everything else seemed straightforward and easy to comprehend. 

Reasoning By Analogy

A comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it's part of an argument: One on side of the comparison, a conclusion is drawn, so on the other side, the conclusion's the same. Reasoning is a cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions, or feelings.

An example would be the legal age to drink and enlisting in the army. If we're old enough to enlist and risk our lives for our country, then we should be old enough to drink.

Sign Reasoning

An argument by sign 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.

An example would be the

Causal Reasoning

When events of one situation is systematically related to the events of another situation. The first set of events is what causes the second set.

An example would be individuals of Middle Eastern and South Asian descents being targeted by hate groups after 9/11.

Criteria Reasoning

Criteria which appeal to common values are likely to be easily accepted.

An example would be "Since your mom dresses well, maybe she'll think this purse would go great with her outfit."

Exemplar Reasoning

Exemplar reasoning is the use of examples in argument. The example may be told as a story or may be a short comparator. It may be a duplicate of the situation or may be a relatively distant metaphor. It may be of a known person, known situation or something not directly known to the other person.

Inductive Reasoning

It's a kind of reasoning that draws generalized conclusions from a finite collection of specific observations.

An example would be every dog I've come across barks. Therefore, all dogs bark.

Deductive Reasoning

Reasoning in an argument is valid if the argument's conclusion must be true when the premises (the reasons given to support that conclusion) are true. One classic example of deductive reasoning is that found in syllogisms. 
An example would be baseball players are hot. Tim Lincecum is a baseball player. Therefore, he is hot.

Interesting Appeal to Emotion

What I found interesting is how every day things that we do not even realize we do are labeled as certain actions. For example, the using of fear as an appeal to emotion did not even cross my mind as something that is used every day. Maybe it is because I do not use this sort of appeal myself but when the text described how politicians and advertisers manipulate people, I thought of the examples that I have seen on TV or newspapers as well as other forms of media. An example would be shows such as Law & Order: SVU. I personally love this show because it depicts the atrocious crimes that have happened in the past or ones that could potentially happen in the future. It evokes such strong emotions that you cannot help but get hooked. The show focuses on detectives that investigate sexual crimes against men, women, and children. In some episodes, I have seen organizations that spread the word of child molesters as well as other sexual offenders living in neighborhoods where children are always present. These organizations/neighborhood watch groups invoke the fear of others in order to keep their neighborhoods safe. They invoke fear by revealing the identities of sexual offenders, where they live, what crimes they have committed, etc. Fortunately, groups do this to protect themselves as well as those around them. Even though this show is fictional, it does depict how life is in certain parts of the country. Not all places are safe and it does seem plausible to bring others to see reality as it is by bringing out the fear of people in order to protect the innocent.

Exercise 1, pg. 195

An example of a bad argument that calls for affirmative action whose only premises appeal to pity is giving money to someone that does not work hard for it. The reason why you would pity this person is if he/she does not have a job or the person can actually put you on some sort of guilt trip by making excuses for why he/she does not have money. It would seem plausible to give money, especially if they are going through a financial crisis but at the same time, if the person is not making any effort to get a job and be self-sufficient, it would be implausible to give money. Giving money is basically at your expense and who knows if you will see a cent back. It would only seem plausible to give money if you knew exactly what it was going to, if you trusted the person, and if you had the money to spare. Other than that, giving money only babies the person and he/she will not appreciate the value of money if he/she does not make it on his/her own.

Appeal To Emotion

An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way. An appeal to emotion in an argument with a prescriptive conclusion can be good or bad. It is important to be alert to the use of emotion because it helps to clarify the kinds of premises needed in such an argument. Therefore, it is more easy to analyze. Any appeal to motion with a descriptive conclusion is bad if the appeal cannot be deleted as premise.

An appeal to emotion that catches my attention is the appeal to pity. The reason why it appeals to me is because like all of my other examples I have discussed for this class, the appeal to pity is something I have experienced. I did not realize that I had been appealed by pity in the past because I never thought of it as having some sort of term. Similar to what many of you may have encountered, I have been appealed by pity when it comes to the homeless. We see their sad living conditions, lack of adequate clothing, and belongings only stored in small knapsacks that we cannot help but feel pity for them. Because of the pity we feel, some of us give them extra change or even whole dollars. Giving them money seems plausible because most would assume they use the money for food or other necessities but how do we know what they really use the money for? Some homeless men even have cardboard signs that read "I'm not gonna lie. It's for cigarettes." Some may even use the donated money for drugs and other illegal activity. In these cases, it is implausible to give them money but the truth is that we may never know what they use the money for.

Useful?

A concept that I found useful is the Slippery Slope Argument from chapter 6. It is a bad argument that uses a chain of conditionals; one may be doubtful or false. The reason why I found this useful to identify is because so many people unknowingly use them. These people can even include parents! In regards to my mother, it is a cultural thing. Being an Asian American, I find my mom's culture difficult to understand. I was born and raised here in San Jose and my mom was raised in the Philippines. Our cultures clash and during one of our many arguments, I found her using a Slippery Slope Argument. Back when she was a teenager, dating was unheard of. "You could not date until you were married", my dad would always joke about. But when I started dating, my mom a little hesitant at first about giving me more freedom to go out. To her, dating young was not something to be encouraged because she grew up believing that it would embarrass the family. She believed that if you dated, you would get pregnant, and you would have to give up school. The reason why this is a slippery slope argument is because dating does not automatically mean pregnancy. And pregnancy does not always mean you become a high school dropout. I am so glad my dad understands the younger generation's culture because if he did not, my mom would not have changed her outlook on dating.

Learned From Chapter 7

From this chapter, I learned about counter-arguments. Regarding raising objections, doing so indicates that an argument is bad. An example of a bad argument is "Letting the kids outside to play is dangerous for their health." The reason why this is a bad argument is because it is subjective; it is based on opinion and is not a proven fact. Another concept I learned was refuting an argument directly. Ways you can do so are by showing that one of the arguments is dubious, or doubtful, showing that the argument is not valid or supported, and showing that the conclusion is false. An example would be "Having a husband seems nice at first because you feel attractive and appreciated. But then as you get older, your looks start to fade and he expresses less interest in you. You let your looks go, so he wants a divorce."

To reduce to the absurd means to indicate that at least one of several claims is dubious or they are collectively unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them. To break it down more clearly, what it means is if one of the claims is doubtful, then the conclusion will be false and vice versa. If an argument is strong but the conclusion is false, then one of the premises is false.

Learned From Chapter 6

From this chapter, I learned about compound claims. At first, I did not think it was something interesting but then I realized that I use them almost every day. A compound claim is composed of other claims but has to be viewed as just one claim (Epstein 113). For example, a compound claim that I find myself using all the time is "I'll pay for the next lunch or just stop by and I'll hook it up with drinks." Obviously, I am not committing to paying my friend back nor am I promising to give out free drinks. I also learned that to make compound claims, the word "or" can link them together.

Another concept I learned about are contradictory claims or negations. The text states that the contradictory has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. An example of a claim could be "Harry plays basketball" while its negation would be "Harry does not play basketball." 

Advertisement

The Epstein text says that many advertisements are arguments, with the (often unstated) conclusion saying that we should buy the product. For my example, I chose QuickTrim, a diet pill advertised and endorsed by Kim Kardashian (I LOVE HER). Its conclusion is "How hot can you be?" and its premise being, "if you take the diet pill, you'll get Kim's results." The truth is, everyone is different, everyone feels different, and not everyone is going to love this product. The product has the benefits of losing weight and feeling sexy but there are always side-effects. From what my mom told me (she's an RN), diet pills can ruin your liver and most people know that diet pills should not be used long-term. The advertisement leaves the side-effects out and only focuses on the good things that can happen to a person taking the pill. In regards to Section A of Ch. 5, we can accept or reject the claim, depending on whether or not there is good reason to believe the premise, its premise is more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument is valid and strong. The advertisement (argument) is not strong; how do we know that taking this pill will work for everyone trying to lose weight? Section B touches upon personal experience being the most reliable source of information about the world. In regards to the advertisement, only a person who has taken the product can accept or reject its claim.

Actually Interesting

What caught my attention is personal experience, specifically that it is the most reliable source of information about the world. We can't all depend on the news or what books tell us because although they may be reputable sources, they may have misconceptions about things. For example, a person living in Vietnam during the war could have witnessed horrific situations and the news covering it, may not have reported it. Does that mean nothing happened? Personal experience is what shapes our world views. One cannot say something did not happen if they themselves were not there. Back in the day, the news, books, magazines, as well as every other source of media were censored in other parts of the world. How do we know that even today, some of what it reported in these parts are not censored? We can only judge and assess certain situations from our own experiences or understand them through the personal experiences of others. We cannot depend on big-name news stations or popular magazines to tell us what goes on in the world. I'm not trying to slam the media because they do help to get the word out on things that happen all over the world but they cannot credit themselves on being experts on the subjects. Only those who experienced them can.

Repairing Arguments

An argument should be repaired if there is no glue to get it from the premise to the conclusion. Too much is missing in an argument so it is difficult to decide what to believe. Arguments can be repaired by adding an unstated premise or an unstated conclusion. When repairing an argument, it needs to become stronger, its premise more plausible (must also seem more plausible to the person who is trying to be convinced), and the premise more plausible than the conclusion. Indicator words are good to use because they tell us the role of the claim in an argument. Conclusion indicators include "so, therefore, hence, consequently" etc. and premise indicators include "since, because, given that," etc.

My example of an argument: Sharon kept saying she liked my sister's ring. The ring is now missing. So, Sharon must have stolen it.

Obviously, my argument is not a good one. There are many other reasons for the ring to be missing. If I was to argue this with another person, the other person could say, "So Sharone liked your sister's ring...does that automatically mean she stole it?" When there is a room for a comment to counter my argument, the argument needs to be repaired. But in some cases, adding more premises does not help. For example, a premise such as "Sharon was the last person in the room to see the ring before it disappeared" is not a good one because it still does not make it valid that she stole the ring. Adding more premises still does not bring a disbelieving person to the conclusion; therefore, it cannot repair the argument.

Not That Interesting...

but it's something that can relate to me so why not talk about it? It's from the Group Communication text and it specifically has to do with Relationships between Superiors and Subordinates. The text talks about how most conversations between managers and employees are work-related. They are conversations like how to do certain tasks, work ethic, etc. The reason why I wanted to talk about this is because when I talk to my bosses, about 60% of the conversations are work-related while the other 40% just has to do with personal interests. One of the most talked about work-related things are rude customers and the stupid/funny things they do-this does have to do with work in general because for my jobs, it's all about customers. But once in awhile, we talk about our personal lives/interests. The section in the text also talks about how mostly employees speak to one another. This is continuing to increase because many workplaces put employees in teams or they work with one another as opposed to working alone. Communication is key when conversing with other co-workers as well as with superiors.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

Almost everyone has used a fallacy in their favor-whether it be to make someone feel guilty for doing or not doing something or just to get your point/argument across to make it seem like you're right and the other person's wrong. In some cases, it's common to be irrational when expressing a fallacy. A good example would be Strawman. Basically, what it means is turning the tables on the other person and acting irrational. You can either use the other person's words against them or put words in their mouth, making it seem that they're the bad guy(s). By doing this, the other person finds that he or she has to defend himself or herself because of the way you're "attacking" them.

An example of the Strawman would be a girl who wants to hang out with her boyfriend but he's too tired from work to hang out. Using a fallacy, she would say something like, "Okay, fine, then you don't have to see me this whole week since you're tired from work." By saying this, she not only uses her boyfriend's words against him but she acts irrational when in reality, people do get tired. Just because he was too tired to hang out doesn't mean she can act immaturely and selfishly or that he doesn't want to see her at all. By the way, this example is NOT of me-I've actually seen some of my friends act like this, haha. I guess nowadays, girlfriends act more psycho than they should.