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.