Chapter 14 generalizations

In the discussion of generalizing this week I found that it connects directly to everyday life.  Generalizing is the connection of our knowledge of the world with the argument at hand.   “To generalize is to make an argument.”  (Epstein, 280)  Because we expect generalizations we have to assume that they all are not correct.  Every time we generalize we must admit that there is always an exception or a chance that the generalization will be true.  To compare generalizing to an argument we need to see how its premises will be the most likely outcome (the generalization).     I realized that the most direct and important way to make sure a premise of a generalization is true is by looking at it.  Maybe you might need to do some research to make sure it was true, but based on our own experiences we gain a great tool to determine if the premises are true or not.

What I loved

My favorite thing about this class was a combination of outside resources that were available and the main text.  I really liked the websites that gave strong examples about everything we discuss in this class.  It almost could serve as a secondary to the main text by Epstein.  This book was one of the best parts of class as it served all main ideas and concepts to us in easy to understand language.  Every week we would read deeper into the text providing us with new ideas that we would relate to our lives.  My favorite part of this book was the way it was written and the language Epstein uses.  My least favorite part of this class was the many intricate parts to concepts and ideas that we had to learn.  I had trouble taking in the many different ways to look at such things as the many fallacy types.     

What I learned

 There is so much that I have learned from this semester at San Jose State.  After changing my major to Public Relations I realized I should learn how to communicate better.  I figured that working in a public relations firm would require good group communication skills.  I joined this class hoping to learn these skills and apply them to my future education.  This class taught me many different ideas and topics about arguments, group communication and the English language itself.  I realized that in daily talk I used many of the topics that this book addresses.  I found myself using vague sentences or fallacies in my arguments before taking this class.  However, I really enjoyed the main book from this semester Critical Thinking by Richard L. Epstein.  His way of writing was very enjoyable for different reasons.  For instance, he would explain topics in words that I could understand.  He sometimes wrote informally, but defiantly made perfect sense when explaining his ideas. 

Chapter 15

Chapter 15 contained a lot of information pertaining to cause and effect.  There are different types of causes, as explained by the text.  Particular causes which have one action leading to an effect such as lighting a fuse leads to a firework exploding.  Another type of cause is generalizations, and this pertains to our own experiences in life.  With common knowledge comes a generalizations such as knowing that because it is morning, the sun will be rising in the east.  Another type of cause is general cause which pertains to the fact that claims need to be true in order for the conclusion to be true.  In this case, normal conditions are all the very obvious unstated claims in one’s cause and effect.  The general cause and effect follows general knowledge as well; for example, knowing that holding a firework while lighting its fuse is a bad idea.  Causes always lead to effects.  

The San Jose Mission Critical website is a very helpful tool with great information.  It covers almost every topic we have discussed in class and is as helpful as Epstein’s text.  The two are great to read together and if I find that I do not understand one author I can refer to another about the same subject for clarification.  It’s great to have this tool which provides very clear and easily understandable information in a vast quantity.  Epstein’s text is the backbone of this class, and now I have this website if I ever need a second explanation on any subject covered in the text.  The tests are extremely helpful as well and quiz you on the exact information we are learning in this class.  Overall this website is a perfect reference for all information discussed in this class and in Epstein’s text.  I will be referring to this website about any topic I need help in. 

Cause Effect

The cause and effect website explained a new type of reasoning to me that I’m still a little unclear about.  To argue causation is a way to argue over many different topics that are found in today’s world.  For example the court systems are often the locations where causal arguing is used to win cases.  Now as I said before I am still a little unclear about this topic, so if I happen to post incorrect information, please leave me a comment and help me out.  For every action in this world there is a reaction.  Like the example the website gave, how since there was a truck parked in the bike lane, the bicyclist had to swerve around it.  Let’s look at an example I came up with:  Two boys are wrestling and one boy (Boy B) accidentally breaks his arm.  Let’s say this happened because Boy A picked him up and slammed him to the ground.  Boy B put his arm out to stop his fall, but ended up breaking it.  Now, is the cause of Boy B’s broken arm cause of wrestling, or is it because Boy A picked him up and slammed him?  In my mind I do not know for sure, but I am going to guess it was the fact that they were wrestling in the first place.  This brings up the part of the website that explains normality.  Because wrestling is dangerous, couldn’t this normally happen?  Or was Boy A wreck less and normally wouldn’t slam Boy B to the ground?  

Chapter 12

When analyzing reasoning by analogy there are a couple different parts of the argument that we have to look at.  According to the text, reasoning by analogy starts with a comparison that is part of the argument.  We judge this comparison to the strength and value of the rest of the argument when using this type of reasoning.  Both sides of the comparison are tested in this argument and should come to the same conclusion.  Analogies can be viewed in the same terms as premises, the conclusion of the argument relies on the value of the premises / analogies.  If we do not believe the premises or analogies to be true or valid, then we can disregard them in the argument.  If one side of the analogy is not valid, then we have nothing to judge the other side to.  Therefore it is necessary that both sides of analogies are clear, true, and similar.  To be similar is very important for analogies because it keeps the argument clear.  Understanding how the law uses analogies is very important as many are used in law making today.  New laws are created or judged by analogies of past laws.      

Reasoning by criteria

From this week's discussion we learned about a lot of different types of arguments and ways to execute them.  Out of all the ones we were given, the one that I had the most trouble with was Reasoning by criteria.  Although i was able to participate in the first post and provide an example, i'll admit my example is unclear even to me.  I felt that with further research about this topic I would be able to better understand it.  What I found was that each criteria were actually just different types of premises.  Arguments are supported by their premises and in this example, the criteria are just as important.  They need to be established as valid and true in order to be in a strong and valid argument.  Criteria are also ways to shorten premises and conclusions and combine them together as well.  Just as with premises, we can assume criteria from reliable sources such as our friends to be true.  The outcome (or conclusion) to an argument is supported through its premises and criteria, so in order to create a solid conclusion, criteria must be appointed first.  

Reasoning

Reasoning by analogy:
Premise 1: There are only 4 members of my family
Premise 2: My mom golfs
Premise 3: My brother golfs
Premise 4: I golf
Premise 5: My dad golfs
Conclusion: Every person in my family golfs.

Sign Reasoning:
I was driving to a very important job interview that I was going to be on time for.  On the freeway my tire popped.  I needed to get to that interview on time, so I changed my tire.

The conclusion here is that BECAUSE I popped my tired, I NEEDED to change it to be on time to my interview.

Casual Reasoning:
Last weekend the Oakland Raiders played at home.  The Raiders scored a touchdown.  Therefore, the crowd cheered and went crazy.

Reasoning by Criteria:
If you were trying to rally interest in prop 19, instead of saying: "Prop 19 is important"
One should say: "Let's discuss both sides of prop 19 with ways to check all facts and evidence"

Reasoning by example:
You want Mrs. X as your teacher? I wouldn't choose her, I have a lot of friends who have told me about how mean of a teacher she is.  They say she grades really hard and unfair.  I also read the reports from ratemyprofessor.com and they all say she is mean.  You should not choose her as your teacher.

Inductive:
Every night I can look up and see stars.  Therefore, this night when I look up I will see stars.

Deductive:
Every night I can look up and see stars.  I am in the middle of a desert miles away from civilization where no light pollution can affect me.  I am under no roof, therefore when I look up I will see stars.

Big course assignments

So we just finished our second big course assignment and I feel like both have been very helpful.  I really liked how we were able to connect the main idea of the assignment to the concepts we read about from the book.  For example, although it was required from each assignment to connect the idea directly to the examples of the book, I feel that in doing so we were able to get a better grasp of each concept.  By first reading the chapters in the book I was able to connect them to a real life situation thanks to this project.  I really liked the second project a lot, which is why I felt I was able to easily make the assignment.  The parts that I was chosen to write about were parts of the text that I felt were very easily understandable.  For example, I wrote about one endorsement to the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers which is the National Football League.  Obviously the idea behind MADD is a very strong and valid one, and such a large company as the NFL looks great by donating money and time to it.  Its common sense why they donate to MADD, but it really connects well to the text.  I looked at who would donate, why, what are the motives.  All are very common sense, yet its important to take a look at the fact that big companies endorse organizations.  Sometimes they do have motives to mislead, but in this case it was all very legitimate and helpful.

Chapter 8

After reading chapter 8 I realized that most of the time the arguments we make in everyday life are very unclear.  We toss around words like "all", "some", and "no" in our arguments when we think they make clear sense and aid our argument.  But in reality, we use these words at unnecessary times that actually make our arguments weaker or false.  The words "all", "some", and "no" have contradictions that we need to realize can hurt arguments we are trying to make.  For example, the contradictions to the word "all" are "some are not" and "not every". Most people (including myself) would assume the contradiction to "all" is "none" but according to the text, this is not true.  When I talk to my friends in everyday life, I use claim words that I need to be more careful when using.  For example, when my friend asked me: "Have you finished your on-line homework so we can go to the tailgate?"  My response was: "Yea, i've finished some of it."  When I throw this line out this, I used a claim that was very vague.  Some of my homework was finished (about one post) but my friend was hoping that "some" meant somewhere around 3 posts and 2 comments finished.       

Chapter 7 topics

One concept from chapter 7 that I have trouble grasping is the statement: "it is irrational to say that an argument is good and then deny its conclusion."  The fact is that this statement has been introduced to us before, yet I still have trouble with it.  I don't know why I have trouble with this, but for some reason I just can't explain why I don't like it or why it makes sense.  If someone could reply to this post with a better grasp of this concept I would greatly appreciate it.  But now on to chapter 7 concepts.  If you are able to raise objections towards a persons argument you are showing how this argument is bad.  According to the book, this is one of the best ways to counter a person's argument.  By showing a premise is weak, then you are showing how the argument is weak.  This makes complete sense to me, because arguments are completely based on their premises.  As stated in the book, premises become glued together to support a conclusion.  In a multi layered argument, premises can be seen as mini-arguments.  By proving these premises dubious, showing an argument isn't valid or strong, or showing that a conclusion is false are direct ways of refuting an argument. (Epstein, 149)

Refuting Indirectly:  As stated in the book, sometimes during an argument we have trouble directly proving a premises wrong.  An example could be a well-studied field of science that you MIGHT think something is wrong with.  But having a well-educated person countering your premises could be hard for you to counter.  In this case, we need to indirectly refute claims.  By having dubious premises, we can draw a false or unwanted conclusion from them.  This shows how directly premises need to be in order to have a strong and valid argument.    

Compound Claims

From chapter 6 the most helpful information I learned was regarding how to decipher compound claims.  The information that stuck with me most was the way compound claims are formed and how we can use them in arguments.  I never realized it before, but the word "or" affects whatever you are saying in very drastic ways.  Or can take two claims and put them together into one while still holding both claims.  It is very easy to tell the difference between claims and arguments, as we only need to find an indicator word to tell us the difference.  One aspect that I found helpful was the fact that we cab use "neither A nor B to be a contradictory of A or B."  We must remember to view each claim in compound claims as its own, but to view the entire claim as one.  This means both claims must be true in order for the compound claim to be true.

Repairing Arguments

If we find an argument that is either weak or invalid, we can repair it following some easy steps.  One way is to add an unstated premise or unstated conclusion.  By doing this, we can make the argument stronger or more valid, and according to the text, by accomplishing this will repair your argument.  Take the example argument:
Recycling is important.  Everyone should recycle.
The premise here is "recycling is important." and the conclusion is "everyone should recycle."  This argument is weak as of now because we are being too vague with our premises.  We need to add one or two more to make this argument stronger.  By adding the premise: Recycling helps save the rain forest from being cut down and cuts down on the amount of pollutants in our air.  Supposing that the person we are arguing with knows background information about this topic, we can safely assume these premise.
The argument is now:

Recycling is important. Recycling helps save the rain forest from being cut down and cuts down on the amount of pollutants in our air. Everyone should recycle.

By adding this one premise, we give reason for people accepting our first premise to support the conclusion.  By just telling someone that something is important is not enough.  By adding this premise however, we can show how recycling is actually beneficial and important.  This argument is now stronger and more valid.  Also, the premises are plausible and seem more plausible to the person who with we are arguing.  By satisfying these, we are following the guide to repairing arguments. 

Fallacies, Part 2

When I read Critical Thinking for the class I read along pages 199-200.  These few pages contain information pertaining to many fallacies and the structure of fallacies.  These pages struck me as most interesting based off of the many examples that we are given for each structural type.  I found myself asking many question about each fallacy in particular, and the idea as a whole.  Page 199 in Epstein's text first explains what fallacies are in a whole, and how some can be bad because of their structure.  Page 200 contains 13 examples of fallacy types and similar types of valid or strong arguments.  For example, a fallacy type called "arguing backwards will all" All S are P. a is P. Therefore, a is S.  This example created some questions for me, which I tried to answer.  What if I just put random nouns in these variables places?  All elephants are big. Mike is big.  Therefore Mike is an elephant.  Does this argument hold?  Is is valid?  I couldn't answer these questions because I began to throw in different nouns and kept coming up with different examples.  It all became kind of confusing to be honest.  If anyone could help clarify please let me know in a comment.

Fallacies

Bad appeal to authority: (Almost) anything that ____ says about ____ is (probably) true.
The fallacy I have chosen to discuss is the "Bad appeal to authority" fallacy.  This fallacy deals with many life-like arguments we see everyday.  This fallacy can be found in many different aspects of life, but it deals with those of less authority to agree or listen to those with more authority, just because of what they say and not actually if the argument is good or valid.  Examples could be an adult teaching a child a lesson, or a police officer talking to a child.  I'll admit that when most people think of authority, they usually think of older people talking to younger people, as if older people have more authority than younger.  And why not, that seems to be a common piece of knowledge in our society.  That seems to be the norm.  But in reality, anyone can have authority over others, and therefore anyone can produce a fallacy dealing with this topic.  When I think about this topic, I instantly think of a news anchor reading garbage to the viewers of that channel.  Some of the viewers will take in everything the anchor says, even if its illogical.  Some people though wouldn't just take it in, but rather dissect the information, and deem the information, for themselves as true or false.  However, usually the majority of people will take in the information and let it be.  With this false information in their minds as factual, they could go around spreading misleading information.  All because they believed in a bad appeal to authority.   

Structure of Arguments

Las Vegas has too many people.  There's not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people.  The infrastructure of the city can't handle more than a million: There streets are overcrowded, and traffic is always congested, the schools are overcrowded, and new ones can't be built fast enough.  We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and country.
Argument?: Yes.  Parts 2, 3, and 4.
Conclusion: Las Vegas needs to control their population by enforcing tough zoning laws in the city and country.
Additional premises needed?: You could talk about how it costs so much for them to transport water from other places to allow the people of Las Vegas the access of running water.  The city is becoming very polluting and energy consuming.
Identify any sub argument: 2, 3, 4, and 5 are sub arguments.  They are all independent of each other and point back to the first sentence and conclusion.
Good argument?: No, I would defiantly say this argument was not good.  I doubt that one million people actually live in Vegas, and providing such an incorrect number makes the rest of the argument null.  The argument is based on the fact that Las Vegas has over one million people, when in reality we know that to be false.      

Good Arguments

Epstein’s text provides us with many different examples of arguments that are either strong, or valid, but never a combination of the two.  When asked to create a good argument it was actually a little more difficult than I excepted.  I realized I needed to create an argument that followed the three “tests” that Epstein provides for us.  After reading the many examples I noticed that sometimes it is hard to create a solid good argument.  Soon however, I was able to create one that followed all premises.  My argument went like this: The United States of America has had 44 presidents.  43 of them were white.  Barrack Obama is the 44^th president.  Barrack Obama is African American.  Barrack Obama is the first African American president.  This argument follows all three “tests”.

The premises are plausible: Although I provide four premises, all of them are plausible.  They are able to be proven and seem very likely. 

The premises are more plausible than the conclusion: Although my conclusion is plausible, it rests on the outcome of my four premises.  Since my conclusion is derived from my premises, it is less plausible than all four of my premises.

The argument is valid or strong: The argument I created is valid, but may not be strong.  My argument is considered valid because if the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true.  In my arguments case, both my premise and my conclusion are true.  The reason my argument may not be considered strong, is because strong arguments are based off of inductive reasoning.  My argument works for deductive reasoning because when all of my premises come together, they create a true conclusion based off my premises.  However, a strong argument comes from inductive reasoning, which my argument does not.            

Descriptive and prescriptive claims

One topic that I found interest in when reading this chapter of these books was descriptive and prescriptive claims.  What I liked about this topic was how the book introduced a new idea to me, as well as how many students in this class showed interest in the same topic.
To understand these topics easier, all you should do is look at them in a descriptive and prescriptive situation.  All problems that we face undergo descriptive thinking and prescriptive solution making.  Take a normal problem for example:  You are driving on a highway and one of your tires pops.  You pull over to realize you have no spare in your trunk and are faced with a difficult situation.  This right here is a descriptive claim as it only describes what is currently going on in a given situation.
Now, to take this problem and critically think it through and arrive at a solution requires one to make prescriptive claims.  These claims pertain to your current situation and what you will do next to find a solution.  Prescriptive claims are the steps and procedures you should take next in order to overcome this problem that you face.  For the previous example, you should either pick up your phone and make a call to your friend or AAA.  That or you could hold our your thumb and hope someone pulls over to help.  Or you could start walking and hope to come upon a place that can help you out.  These are all different prescriptive actions that you SHOULD take to overcome your current situation.  

Vague and Ambiguous

Vague sentences are becoming more common in today's culture.  This is because advertising is becoming a bigger part of life, and some people are apathetic.  These sentences can be classified as vague if they create more questions than they answer.  A sentence is vague if when perceived by others, can have many different meanings.  A vague statement I heard the other day was when I was watching T.V.  An advertisement I saw for an energy drink proclaimed that this drink "enhanced reflexes and stimulates your mind."  I perceived this statement as vague due to the fact that it left me with more questions than it answered.  I began questioning what reflexes it enhances and how your mind can become stimulated?  What stimulates your mind and how is it making your mind better than before?  I realized that vagues sentences are found throughout our culture because they are easy to listen to.  People are so fast paced today that they just want the straight information, and don't really take the time to listen to what the messages may imply.  These messages can be vague or ambiguous, meaning that they leave us with more questions, or can be completely unclear to the listener.  

Subjunctive and Objective Claims

Two possible claims that we can produce can be subjunctive claims or objective claims.  These two claims are supported to justify one's conclusion in a statement or argument, but are very different from each other.  A subjunctive claim can be true or false but it's composed of personal beliefs, thoughts, or feelings (Epstein, 20)  Subjunctive claims can be true to some people, but false to others, depending on who is listening.  A subjunctive statement that I heard recently took place between myself and my friend.  We were arguing about whether southern or northern California had better surfing conditions.  I said "southern California has better waves." because I am from LA.  But this sentence is subjunctive because I prefer different types of waves than my friend does.  I ride a short board, which calls for different waves than my friend would prefer who rides long boards.  The waves that I prefer are big, quick breaking, and easier to ride on a short board.  The waves a long-boarder would prefer are slower, smaller waves.  This is subjunctive because it's based on my opinion that I prefer short board waves.  My friend who argues that northern California has better surf is also stating a subjunctive claim because his argument is based on his opinion that long boarding waves are better.  

Objective claims are the exact opposite from subjunctive.  They can be true or false but are not based on opinion, but rather factual evidence that can be supported and proven / dis-proven.  An example of an objective claim that I heard recently was my friend saying "The Niners just beat the Chargers!"  My friend went to the 49's vs. San Diego Chargers football game last night and when he got back, my friend Chris stated this objective claim.  It was factual evidence that the 49's beat the chargers as viewed by thousands who watched the game and millions who saw the score from either websites, newspapers, or other sport related articles.  We are able to prove that the 49's actually won the game, making his statement objective and true.    

Introductory Post

What's up everyone my name is Zach.  I'm from LA and have grown up surfing and snowboarding. 
As of now my major is listed as art, but that is defiantly going to change.  To be honest I'm still undeclared and have no idea what I want to do.
I have worked in some communication before, and this past summer I worked at the Tennis Channel. 
This is my first online class and hope it's a great one, hope to hear from you guys in class.