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.