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.