Further Discussion Please

A concept from Epstein that can be further discussed is deductive reasoning. When I first read this concept in the book I found it very difficult to understand at first. The book gave a vague delimitation of that I found very difficult to comprehend. It took me until I looked up deductive reasoning online before I could fully understand it. After looking  it up online I what I understood is that Deductive reasoning is a basic form in valid reasoning in which begins with a general case and deduces specific instances. Deductive reasoning begins with a theory. The truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. The argument is valid if the conclusion doesn’t really follow from the premise. If the book the book did a better job of explaining this concept it would be much easier to understand.

What I Liked And Disliked

There were many things that I liked about this class. My favorite thing about the class had to be the blog.  The blog post allowed me to show what I learned every week in class. I enjoyed the many different concepts and I like how I was able to post how I understood each concept. Commenting on each person blog was fun as well; I liked sharing my own opinion on various concepts. Only problem I had with the post was making sure I did each post on time. What I disliked most about the class was the group assignments. The group assignments were very time consuming. Often times my group could not agree on a good to work together. Our different agendas were hard to adjust to. I found it very hard to juggle schedule for the group because I was very busy this semester. Aside from that my group worked great together .Overall it was a great class. I enjoyed it a lot

What I Learned This Semester

There are many things I learned in the class over the class over the semester. The book for the course had many different concepts that I found interesting. One of the most interesting concepts from the book too me was the one about arguments. Before this class I never knew how I could properly analyze an argument. The book thought us how to identify a weak argument, and a strong invalid argument. A good argument is an argument in which the premise is true and gives you a reason to believe the conclusion. Another thing I found interesting about the course was the many different fallacies.  After reading over the fallacies it was crazy to me how often these fallacies are used everyday and how effective they are. I don’t think I’m going to fall for these fallacies as much anymore since I’m able to identify each one .Overall this was a great course, I’m glad I took the class.

A concept from chapter 15

A concept from Epstein Chapter 15 that I found useful was the concept of cause and effect. According to Epstein the general cause and effect: for it to be to be true, lots of particular cause and effect must be true. There is also a criterion for cause and effect. The criteria for cause and effect are:

-The cause happened (the claim describing it is true)

-The effect happened (the claim describing it is true)

-The cause precedes the effect.  

-It is (nearly) impossible for the cause to happen (be true) and the effect not to happen (be false), given the normal conditions

-The Cause makes a difference – if the cause had not happened (been true), the effect would not have happened (been true)

-There is no common cause

An example of a cause and effect claim is: Clarence studied all night for his test, therefore Clarence received a good grade

Mission Critical

I found many things interesting about the Mission Critical website. The website was very useful because it gave details on various concepts.  The website explained the concepts so well that you can refer to the website instead of the book if you want to understand the concept.  The website gives you a better understanding than the book does. I liked the introduction of induction.  The website goes into great detail about the concept and gives exercises so that you can understand the concept. It tells you the elements that the argument depends on to tell its strength. They are how accurate and comprehensive the previous observations are, how strong the causal link seems to be, and how similar the two cases are. If you get a question wrong on the exercise then the website explain to you why you got it wrong, I found that very helpful. Overall the explanations were easier to understand. 

Cause and Effect Website

I found many things useful about the Cause and Effect website. What I found useful was how detailed it explained the cause and effect concept. Inductive reasoning is based on observation or experience. There are two rules to remember when dealing with cause and effect.

1. I found the cause and effect website useful for many reasons. What I found useful about the website is. The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation.
2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original "cause" and its purported "effect."

The website makes it easier to understand the cause and effect concept. It also gave exercises that are helpful too. 

Judging Analogies

After learning about the many types of reasoning, a concept from chapter 12 I found interesting is judging analogies.  There are seven questions to help evaluate an analogy. These considerations clearly matter in determining the relative strength or weakness of an analogy. These questions are:

1. Is this an argument? What is the conclusion?

2. What is the comparison?

3. What are the premises? (one both sides of the comparison)

4. What are the similarities?

5. Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle that covers the two sides.

6. Does the general principle really apple to both sides? Do the differences matter?

7. is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?

If you are able to apply these questions to the analogy you will successfully be able to evaluate the analogy.  This was very useful because I can use this to evaluate an analogy each time.

Deductive Reasoning

The type of reasoning I found most difficult to understand was deductive reasoning. After doing some additional research on the internet, I was able to understand it better. Deductive reasoning is a basic form in valid reasoning in which begins with a general case and deduces specific instances. Deductive reasoning begins with a theory. The truth of the premises is supposed to guarantee the truth of the conclusion; in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true. The argument is valid if  the conclusion doesn’t really follow from the premise .An example would be: All Biologist are smart. Biologist are scientist, therefore scientist are smart. This is an example of deductive reasoning because the theory is made, and the conclusion follows. The basic idea is that if something is true of a class of things in general, this truth applies to all legitimate members of that class is shown in this example.

Reasoning

In chapter 12, Epstein introduces many different types of reasoning. The different types of reasoning are reasoning by analogy, sign reasoning, casual reasoning, reasoning by criteria, reasoning by example, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning .Examples of each are:

Reasoning by Analogy – “John Got A’s in every class this semester. People who get A’s are smart. Therefore John is smart”

Sign Reasoning – “It’s been a long time since you’ve been out of your room. You must’ve been studying”.

Casual Reasoning – “I didn’t do well on the midterm, so I definitely won’t get a good grade in the class”

Reasoning by Criteria – “Doug wants to play a physical sport. John wants to play football.

Reasoning by Example – “You should drink coffee before you study. I did it and I was able to stay awake”

Inductive Reasoning – “Every test we have had so far have been multiple choice. There for the next test will be multiple choice

Deductive Reasoning – “Since all squares are rectangles, and all rectangles have four sides, all squares have four sides

Appeal To Pity

A concept from chapter 10 not yet discussed that I found interesting is the appeal to pity. Appeal to pity is when the arguer tries to get someone to agree with them by evoking pity or sympathy. There is no evidence provided so the arguer must persuade their listeners to believe their conclusion by using sympathy.  Using pity can definitely be effective, and cause someone to believe their conclusion.  This is very effective, and commonly used.  This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good adviser to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason and evidence, instead of on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true.An example of appeal to pity would be Pro- Life campaigners.  They show images of aborted fetuses to turn them against abortions.  This has been very effective in persuading people out getting abortions.

Appeal To Fear Advertisement

This is an advertisement that uses appeal to fear that I found very interesting. The ad begins talking about how hair loss may run in your family, but it doesn’t have to if you don’t want it to. Rogaine states that if there are any signs of hair falling out that you should use their product right away to prevent any addition hair loss from happening. This product can help you keep the hair that you love. They also mention that they are clinically proven to prevent hair loss. This advertisement appeals to fear because Rogaine knows that many men fear hair loss, and would do anything to prevent it. This is a good argument because they provide evidence stating why you should use their product over others since it is clinically proven .Rogaine using the  fear of hair loss in their advertisement  have been very effective. They have been a business for many years.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/fear%20ads/pages/rogaine_jpg.htm

Appeal to Emotions

According to Epstein appeal to emotions argument “is a premise that’s says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way”. No evidence is provided to prove the persons argument.  The persons aim is to persuade their listeners by methods of instilling fear, pity, guilt, etc. Many advertisements use this fallacy to persuade people to buy their products.This argument is very effective .

Example:

Please officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for speeding because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just got fired today and our car is going to be retrieved today as well

The person is trying to persuade the officer out of receiving a traffic ticket by pity.  If the officer feels bad enough for the person he may be convinced to not give him a ticket.

Vague Generalities

In Chapter 8, Epstein mentions vague generalities. Vague generalities occur when we make a claim without specifying a precise number. Epstein says that these words are too vague to figure in valid argument. Most of these words are too ambiguous to be used in a claim. Some words that can make a vague claim are all, almost, many, most, a lot of, some, a few, and very few.  

Example:

A lot of basketball players are tall

John is basketball player

So John is tall

The premise gives us good reason to make the claim. The problem is that the conclusion doesn’t follow with any exclusion. This is still al weak claim. We don’t know that john is tall just because a lot of basketball players are tall. It’s only a few occasions where a vague generality can make a strong argument. It would be better specify better in order to make the claim a valid claim.

Assignment #1

The first assignment was very useful for many reasons. Working as a group for an online class wasn’t an easy thing to do. Everyone had their own agenda, and we had to adjust our schedules to make sure we could get our assignment done. The first assignment was very interesting. It was harder than the second assignment, but I still found it more useful. We had to establish a leader in the group who managed what everyone in the group would do. Thanks to the leader taking initiative, we were able to get our paper done. Our method for getting our paper done was very effective. The first one was also more useful because we applied what we learned in class to do our assignment. .After getting our first group assignment done; we were better prepared for the second assignment. We each knew how we would contribute to get our papers done. 

General Claims

In Chapter 8, Epstein talks about general claims and their contradictories. Epstein describes general claims as  how we assert something about all or part of a collection .There are four words in general claims that can be used in arguments  all, some, no, and only. All means “every single one, no exceptions”. Some means “at least one”. No means “not even one. Only means “no more than”. An example would be all baseball players use steroids to enhance their performance. This claim isn’t true because not every baseball player has tested positive for having steroids in their system. Just because a few baseball players have tested or admitted to using steroids doesn’t mean that every baseball players doing it. Contradictory claims reject the claim is made, you must have a good argument for your contradictory claim to be valid. There is a way to contradict this argument. An example would be, no baseball players use steroids to enhance their performance. 

Free Post

A concept from the reading this weak I found interesting is Chapter 6’s compound claims and “or” Claims. The book describes a compound claim as “one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim.  The book also discusses alternatives. Alternatives “are the claims that are the parts of an “or” claim. The “or” links two claims to make a compound claim. For instance “I will drive the Nissan or ill drive the Toyota.

Another concept in chapter 6 the book discussed that I found interesting was the contradictory of a claim. The book states that the contradictory of the claim as “one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances”. The contradictory is sometimes labeled as the negation of a claim. An example would be Peyton Manning isn’t the best quarterback in the NFL, Tom Brady is”.  A contradictory claim would be “Peyton Manning is the best quarterback in the NFL not Tom Brady. 

Chapter 7

A concept from chapter 7 I found interesting is the concept of how to refute an argument. According to Epstein the direct ways of refuting an argument is to show at least one of the premises is dubious, the argument isn't valid or strong, or that the conclusion is false. Only one of these three has to be shown to directly refute an argument. For instance, “The only reason why Kobe Bryant Scores a lot of points is because he ball hogs, if he didn’t ball hog he wouldn’t score as many points”. You can refute this by saying “Kobe doesn’t score a lot of points because he ball hogs, he picks and chooses his shots wisely, he distributes to his teammates throughout the game, and he even leads his team in assist”. The Argument has been refuted because there is evidence proving that one of the premises in the argument is dubious.

False Dilemma

A concept from Chapter 6 that I found useful was the concept of False Dilemma. Epstein Describes False dilemma as “a bad use if excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible”. The “or” claim is called a false dilemma sometimes. We allow ourselves to think that we can only choose between two options.

False Dilemmas follow this pattern:

1. Either claim A is true or claim B is true. A and B could both be false

2.  Claim B is false

3.  As a result claim A is true

Example:

John:  Carl and I are going on a double date at the movies tomorrow with Simone and Mary

Carl: I didn’t say I would

John: You don’t have a girlfriend already do you Carl?

John assumed that since Carl wouldn’t go on the double date with him that he must already have a girlfriend already. There are many other reason why Carl didn’t want to go on the double date with John. It is not fair to assume that having a girlfriend is the only reason why he wouldn’t go with him.

What I Found Interesting About This Weeks Readings

 Something I found interesting this week’s reading was common mistakes in evaluating premises. More Specifically, bad appeals to authority and mistaking a person for the claim. Epstein states that bad a s a mistake to accept a claim as a true solely because a lot of other people believe it. Mistaking the person for the claim as a mistake to reject a claim solely because of who said it. An example of bad appeal to common belief would be a Bowflex commercial. The Commercial advertises their Bowflex and claims that the Bowflex will make you stronger and bigger, you will also see your results much faster if you use this product. This is example. They show many people who claim to have used this product and said that it worked well. The problem is there is no evidence to show that those people used that product. Those people could have already been big before they appeared on the commercial.  People will buy this product thinking that they will have the same, but they don’t really know if the product worked for the people in the commercial.

Advertisement

http://network4g.verizonwireless.com/#/4g-network-verizon-wireless


The advertisement I have chose is by Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless claims to have the fastest and most advanced 4g network in America. This is not a good argument because there is no evidence to prove the claim that their 4g network is the fastest and most advanced in America.  Epstein chapter 5 states that for an argument to be good there must be a good reason to believe the premise, the premise are more plausible than the conclusion, and the argument must be valid or strong.  Many other networks claim to have faster networks also, so should I believe Verizon over any other network? There must be evidence provided to prove that your 4g network is better.  Someone who hasn’t had Verizon before wouldn’t be able to tell if the claim is really true or not.I cannot accept the claim because of lack of evidence. Verizon needs to be more specific if they want their argument to be good

Needs some repair...

This week’s discussion covered violating the principal of a rational discussion. Many arguments are not strong and are invalid because there is a part of the argument that needs to be repaired. They can be repaired by adding a premise or conclusion to make the argument stronger. An argument such as “Kevin Durant is good at basketball because he has many awards” needs to be repaired for many reasons. It is not a strong or valid argument. Just because Kobe has awards does not mean he is good at basketball. The awards could have been given to him for different reasons bedsides his basketball skills. The argument can be repaired by saying “Kevin Durant is good at basketball because he has many awards for his performance on the basketball court”. The more specific the arguer is the better.Now there is a plausible premise and the argument is strong and valid.

Begging the Question

There are many ways to violate the principal of rational discussion.Begging the question is a fallacy in which the conclusion is presumed to be true without any evidence other than the claim. The claim is thought of to be already valid, but no reason why the claim is true. The Epstein edition states that begging the question is “The point of an argument is to convince that a claim is true.  So the premises of an argument have to be more plausible than the conclusion”.

Example: 

Past-life memories of children prove that past lives exist because the children could have no other source for their memories besides having lived in the past.

This example is a fallacy because it is presumed that past lives do happen because children have past-life memories.  There is no evidence proving the claim that children have had past life memories.  The whole argument is invalid.

Leadership and Decision Making in Groups and Teams

One interesting thing I found in the Essential Guide to Group Communication reading was about the many different types of leadership. A leadership is when a person in a superior position has the ability to get a group of conflicting interest all in the same accord. There are four different types of leadership: Authoritarian, Consultative, Participative, and Laissez-faire. The authoritarian is the leader that dictates the rules and agenda. They direct all activities, but rarely participate. The consultative leader style seeks the opinion of its team and subordinates. Consultative leaders like to consider all information before making any decision. They are also task orientated. The participative leader does not dictate their decisions. They look to involve everyone in the decision making process. They like become part of the team. Laissez-fair is that leader that leads as a non-authoritarian. Rarely is any guidance given to subordinates and assistants. They are not much of a leader

3 Test For An Argument To Be Good

There are three requirements an argument must contain in order to be good. For an argument to be good the premise are plausible. Premise is more plausible than the conclusion. The argument is valid or strong. An example of a good argument test would be:

Example:  All players in the NFL went to college

               Peyton Manning is in the NFL

               Therefore Peyton Manning went to college

Analysis: The premise of the argument is true. The conclusion is also true. This is a valid argument because there is no possible way for both the conclusion and premise to be false.  The premise is plausible because it is a requirement for all NFL players to complete three years of college before they enter the NFL. The second premise is also plausible .The conclusion cannot be false because in order for Peyton Manning to play in the NFL, he had to go to college.  There for the argument is a good one.

Valid Argument vs Strong Argument

A valid argument is an argument in which the premise is true and the conclusion has to be true as well . You cannot argue against a valid claim illogically.


Example: Pit bulls are frequently viewed as viscous animals. So as a breed they are often euthanized.


This is a valid argument because  it is true that Pit Bulls are the most euthanized breed. The premise is possible making the argument a good one.


A strong argument is an argument in which the the conclusion is possibly true because the premise is true. There is still a possibility for the conclusion to be false too.


Example:  All students who study hard get A's. Derek studies hard, so Derek gets A's


This is a strong argument because there is a logical claim. There is still a possibility for the argument to be false though. Just because Derek studies hard does not guarantee that he will get an A.

Introduction

                Hello Ms. Perez and fellow classmates, I am Tom Green. I am a sophomore at SJSU, currently undeclared, but looking to declare soon. I was born and raised in Los Angeles. My favorite sports team is the LAKERS (Go LAKERS!). Hobbies I have are playing video games, exercising, playing basketball.  My main goal in life is to be successful.