Further discussion...

Before learning about the “inferring & implying” concepts, I had already thought and implanted in my mind that “infer” & “imply” were synonyms. So, reading this section made me a bit confused and a bit irritated. Having a different understanding of what the words meant beforehand just made things harder instead of easier (which I had thought when I first skimmed the chapter of Repairing Arguments). When I first read what “infer” meant I was confused on what “unstated claim” meant. I understand the word “imply,” but “infer” just keeps confusing meThe example confused me even more saying, “ we infer this from the person’s remarks; he has implied it.” Infer and imply in the sentence made me believe that they meant the same thing. Also, the section was short, which made it seem like the concept should be simple and easy to understand, but instead, it was short and had a lot to say which I think made it overwhelming. At the end, just when I think I understand and believe I can differentiate the two words, I read more and I get confused again. The “inferring & implying” concepts definitely need further discussion in my point of view.

Favorite...least favorite...improvement...

My favorite thing about the class was how we blogged about the different concepts that we learned throughout the semester. I thought it was pretty cool that in order to participate in class, the students had to blog, which when you hear “blog” you think of social networking sites that are not beneficial to one’s life. I also liked the feedback I received from the other students in the blogs because it felt as if we were all engaging about learning the subject, even though were not physically there.

My least favorite thing about the class is having to learn the concepts on my own (I know it is an online course). I know that if we were to meet up in person or maybe even have the professor show videos of her teaching, I would understand the course a bit easier. Also, I really didn’t like how the tests and especially the quizzes were limited. It felt as if there was so much to do in so little time…I think it would be better if the test time limit were as long as regular class meetings such as an hour and 15 minutes or at least 45 minutes to an hour.

This class can be improved by providing the right answers to the tests and quizzes. Everybody learns from his or her mistakes. I feel that if I were to be able to know what the correct answers were I would understand the different concepts a bit more clearer rather than being clueless in what question I got wrong and right. After taking the tests and quizzes, I would not feel confident in any of my answers just because I wasn’t able to receive feedback from them; instead, I was just in doubt. 

I learned...

Over the course of the semester I’ve learned that in everyday life, people argue, debate, and reason using different concepts, but they just don’t know exactly what kind of argument they are making. The two concepts that really popped out to me taking this course were the vague versus ambiguous sentences and the appeal to emotion concepts. In reasoning, we can tolerate some vagueness, but we certainly cannot tolerate any ambiguity. With vagueness, one person can say, “Add a pinch of salt to the dish.” Then we can question them and be “smart” by asking, “What’s a pinch of salt…50 grains or 100…but isn’t everybody’s finger different in size…?” With ambiguity, one can say, “Everybody has to dance in front of the mirror.” With that, we can question if the person is saying everyone has to dance as groups or individuals. As with the appeal to emotion concepts, there were two that caught my eye. I would constantly see heartbreaking advertisements about young children fighting diseases and also ones that frighten me. Know I can watch these advertisements knowing that they are trying to persuade me to do something about the situation because of the appeal to pity or the appeal to fear. 

Cause and Effect in Populations.

I thought the section in chapter 15 about cause and effect in populations was interesting and easy to read and understand.

Cause in populations: given the cause, there’s a higher probability that the effect will follow than if there were not the cause

For example: Studying gets you higher grades.

*In relation to cause in population, people who study will have a much higher probability of receiving a higher grader than people who do not study.

1. Using a controlled experiment: cause-to-effect, we can use a control group of students who will not study and another group who will. Using a control group shows that, at least statistically, the cause makes a difference.

2. Using an uncontrolled experiment: cause-to-effect, we start with the suspected cause (of studying) and see if the effect follows (higher test grade). Though it’s uncontrolled: some people may only study for a certain amount of time, some people may already be knowledgeable about the subject, etc.

3. Using an uncontrolled experiment: effect-to-cause, we start with the effect in the population and try to account for how it got there. We would pick out all the high-grade tests to see if there is some common thread with the students’ studying that got them such a high grade.

Mission Critical Website.

Looking over and participating in the Mission Critical Website seemed like a review because the website pretty much went over everything that we have learned from the beginning of the semester to this day. I really liked how the website broke down the different concepts into sections which made it easier to take in and absorb. I’ve always had a hard time differentiating between ambiguous and vague, but after I read that part of the website I finally came to an understanding…and that is, “ambiguous” means it has at least two specific meanings, but “vague” means it is not clear in the context. I also love how the website had exercises and quizzes that I was able to practice with. I really favor the fallacies (especially the emotional appeal) and reading over the fallacies section made me learn even more about them. Overall, the website was useful in being a little review with help exercises and quizzes to heighten my knowledge about critical thinking.

Cause & Effect website, reading, and exercises.

Reading the book and doing the exercises and reading the website increased my knowledge about cause and effect (causal arguments). I thought that the book would have been easier to understand so I read that first, but I was still a bit confused until I looked over and read the introduction to causal arguments website. Reading the book was a little overwhelming with so many different examples thrown at you, but the website only followed one example and applied all the concepts within a casual argument which made it easier to comprehend. Though, I liked how the book broke down the parts into sections of deciding what is the cause such as: causes and effects, the normal conditions, particular causes, generalizations, and general causes, the causes precedes the effect, the cause makes a difference, overlooking a common sense, tracing the cause backwards, criteria for cause and effect, and the two mistakes in evaluating cause and effect (reversing cause and effect and looking too hard for a cause) because it helped me understand how to look for a cause. Both book and website helped me, but the website was more helpful in terms of simplicity and not so overwhelming like the book. 

Judging Analogies.

When judging analogies saying that one side of the analogy is like the other is too vague to use as a premise. To evaluate an analogy you have to consider:

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

2.     What is the comparison?

3.     What are the premises? (one or 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 apply to both sides? Do the differences matter?

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

Example:

Police offers are allowed to use their cell phone while driving. So everybody driving should be able to use his or her cell phone.

What do police officers have to do with regular people?

There are similarities such as them being licensed people who are able to drive and differences such as the type of car they drive and the clothes they wear, but these similarities and differences does not hit the main point of the argument.

Police officers may be able to use their cell phone for job purposes, but regular people use their cell phone for their own pleasure, which can risk the life of another person on the road. 

Reasoning by analogy.

Out of all the types of reasoning I would have to say that the reasoning by analogy was the most difficult for me to understand. Reading the book and the link still had me confused about what it meant. I had to read my peers’ posts about the reasoning to understand it even more. Reading the Wikipedia site didn’t really help me because it got me confused with inductive reasoning. I wasn’t sure if the two were the same or not, with inductive reasoning being the modern view of it or not. Going through a website, I learned that there are four steps: 1. Identify the analogy by recognizing the similarities between objects or situations, 2. State the purpose of the analogy, 3. Assess the source of your analogy, and 4. Evaluate the ambiguities, dissimilarities, false attributions that may weaken or break the analogy. Reasoning by analogy is just like saying: “since it was O.K. there, it should be O.K. here” or “since we concluded here, we can conclude there.”

Example: Dogs are like people. So if they are neglected through care, so will people.

Reasoning.

Reasoning by analogy: a comparison becomes reasoning by analogy when it’s part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion and on the other side we should conclude the same.

Example: Free food encourages people to participate in an event. Therefore, people should offer free food if they want people to participate.

Sign Reasoning: two or more things are closely related that the presence or absence of one indicates the presence or absence of the other

Example: Where there are shoes, there are socks.

Casual Reasoning: events of one sort (the causes) are systematically related to events of some other sort (the effects)

Example: I leave my house to school 15 minutes later than usual. I drive to school and end up being stuck in more traffic than usual. I show up to class late.

Reasoning by criteria: define the criteria and then identify the best decision

Example: Sleeping late will disrupt your concentration in class. Sleep early and you will be able to concentrate better.

Reasoning by example: the use of examples in argument

Example: You should get a job. When my brother was unemployed he was so bored and broke to do anything, but once he got one he was happier in doing something productive and earning money to spend on his self.

Inductive: reasoning based on previous observations

Example: Ordering at King Egg Roll on Story Road always takes forever for you to get your party tray. Therefore now, I call in advance to make an order so I can get my party tray faster.

Deductive: if the argument's conclusion must be true when the premises are true

Example: All SJSU students are required to have a parking permit when parking in one of the garages. I am a SJSU student who parks in one of the garage; therefore, I have a parking permit.

Appeal to Spite.

The appeal to spite type of appeal to emotion is basically the hope of revenge. Some cultures reject this type of appeal on the moral grounds and some other cultures not only accept the appeal, but also encourage a moral imperative for a person to "get even," to keep one's "honor."

For example: 

John: Hey Jill, what are you eating? It smells really good!

Jill: It's some rice, meat, and some vegetables my mom made me.

John: Oh, can I have some?

Jill: Of course!

McKayla: (whispering) Why are you going to give him some, Jill? Do you remember, last time? John would not give you any of his food you wanted to try.

McKayla's argument: You should not give John any of your food, because he would not give you some last time. To make McKayla's argument strong, she should add, "You shouldn't offer to anyone who has refused to offer you something (recently)."

Appealing to Fear.

Appealing to fear is a type of appeal to emotion that manipulates people.

Here is an advertisement that reads, “Nothing Will Ever Be the Same. Smoking gave me throat cancer at 39. Now I breathe through a hole in my throat and need this machine to speak. QUIT SMOKING TODAY. For help call 311.” The main conclusion her is, “Quit smoking.” More specifically the good argument is saying “because you smoke, you can get throat cancer and will only get to speak through a hole in your throat with a machine.” “Nothing Will Ever Be the Same” makes the advertisement “touch” people even more as the starting statement. This is a good argument because there is some way, some possibility, for its premises of getting throat cancer and speaking through a machine with the hole on the throat to be true and its conclusion false (at the same time), but every such possibility is extremely unlikely. Plus, it has a picture of a man holding a mic on his throat. But also adding, “quitting smoking is your concern about your life” makes the argument even stronger. Overall, good appeal to fear argument.

Appeal to Emotion: Appeal to Pity

In arguments, there can be an appeal to emotion that generally says that you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way. Our emotional life has a huge impact on our lives and what we do, but just because you are moved through emotion, doesn’t mean you should believe the argument. The appeal to pity type of appeal to emotion strikes me the most because I’ve witnessed this in our previous writing assignment with the social organizations. My organization, UNICEF, which helps innocent and needy children who don’t have clean water, have no education, have HIV/AIDS, etc makes me and I’m pretty sure everybody else in the world sorry for them. I feel sorry for them and there is a way for me to help. I just felt like I can clearly see this type of appeal to emotion with the recent paper and just in general, I hate to see people suffer and doing so will just automatically trigger my appeal to pity.

No.

In order to avoid believing an argument is valid we have to understand what “no” means and that there is not just one way to use it.

“No” means “not even one,” “every single one is not.”

For example: Being a person with a Mac laptop I can say, “No Mac has a pear symbol. “ or “All Macs do not have a pear symbol,” or “Not even one Mac has a pear symbol.” or “Nothing that’s a Mac has a pear symbol.”

Being a person with a Honda, I can say, “No Civic has a Dodge symbol,” or “All Hondas do not have a Dodge symbol,” or “Not even one Honda has a Dodge symbol,” or “Nothing that’s a Honda has a Dodge symbol.”

Being a person with a Samsung TV I can say, “No Samsung TV has a Sony symbol,” or “All Samsungs do not have a Sony symbol,” or “Not even one Samsung has a Sony symbol,” or “Nothing that’s a Samsung has a Sony symbol.”

2nd Major Course Assignment (Social Organizations).

The second major course assignment was more useful to me than the first. It made me realize that there are so many social organizations out there. I've also noticed that even though celebrities endorse in a specific organization, it doesn't mean that you HAVE to support it because these social organizations also hold fallacies. The organization uses the appeal to common belief by using celebrities. People look up to celebrities and seeing that their idol is lending a helping hand to an organization persuades people to also join not necessarily because of the organization, but because their favorite celebrity is supporting. Organizations also have an emotion to appeal to try to suck you into believing and helping them through pathos. In example, the UNICEF organization has the kids to try to convince people to help the organization by presenting their own heartbreaking life stories. And they're kids! Who can't say no to these innocent kids, right? I've learned that we can't trust all organizations, but we have to thoroughly look through them with their concealed claims, reasoning, fallacies, use of emotion to appeal, celebrity endorsement, how they advertise, and finally make a decision to accept/reject/suspend judgment.

"All" & "Some"

Valid or not valid...?

To avoid thinking a belief is valid we have to understand what the words "all" and "some" mean and that there are multiple ways to use the two.

All--> "Every single one, no exceptions." Sometimes "Every single one, and there is "at least one." It depends on the argument.

For example:
Being a dancer, I know that, "All dancers dance to music." I can also say "Every dancer dances to music," or "Dancers dance to music," "Everyone that's a dancer dances to music."

Some--> "At least one. Sometimes "At least one, but not all." It depends on the argument.

For example:
Being an employee, I've observed that, "Some workers don't do their job correctly." I can also say "There is an employee that doesn't do his/her job correctly," or "At least one employee doesn't do his/her job correctly," or "There exists an employee that doesn't do his/her job correctly."

Refuting directly.

I thought that the refuting an argument (directly) section of Chapter 7 (counterarguments) was interesting.

There are direct ways of refuting an argument.

-1. Show that at least one of the premises is dubious.

-2. Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong.

-3. Show the conclusion is false.

For example:

There’s no point in coming to class when you’re already late. You’ve already missed some things, so might as well miss the whole thing (all or nothing). (1)

Since you missed the first half, you will be confused for the whole second half, meaning you wouldn’t understand anything making it reasonable to not come to class when late. (2)

Refuting the argument:

1.     We can object to the first premise (dubious) because maybe the class didn’t learn anything in the first half.

2.     We can agree to the second premise, but we’d have to tweak “the whole” with “some of the,” and also “anything” to “some things” making the argument weak.

3.     We can show the conclusion as false by saying that we’ve gone to class late and was still able to understand what was going on either on your own or by asking your professor and/or classmates.

Counterarguments.

Raising objections.

-To show that an argument is bad, raising objections is the standard way. With that, we are creating a new argument that either calls one premise into question, or shows that there is an unstated dubious premise, or shows why the argument is weak.

For example:

Everybody should have a Facebook. 1
Facebook allows people to get in touch with friends and family. 2
Facebook can help people with their homework by interacting with classmates online. 3
Facebook is also better than MySpace. 4

*Objections:
Not all of their friends or family have a Facebook. 5
Facebook can also distract people from doing their homework and other priorities. 6


With these objections, people will see the argument as bad and have good reason to believe the conclusion is false. (1).


Attempts to refute that are bad arguments.

-Strawman is the worst of all the bad ways to refute. Strawman is putting words into somebody's mouth when that person didn't even say it.

For example:

McKayla doesn't like the iPhone 4. Obviously, she hates Apple products.

*McKayla never said she doesn't like Apple products.

The only reasonable response to this strawman is (calmly):

McKayla: I don't like the iPhone 4.
Jaden: So you're saying that you don't like Apple products.
McKayla: I didn't say that. I just don't like the iPhone 4.

*No need of name calling, such as "bastard, douche, etc" :) Ahahaha.

Compound and Conditional.

A compound claim is made up of other claims, but has to only be viewed as one claim.

For example:

Either we will go to the Spaghetti party or the Haunt at Great America.

*This is one claim, but is made up of two claims.
     -1. We will go to the Spaghetti Party.
     -2. We will go to the Haunt at Great America.
*The "or" links the two claims together to make it a compound.

The contradictory of a compound claim has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Sometimes called a "negation" of a claim.

For example:

Claim: She is a dancer.
Contradictory: She is not a dancer.

Claim: He will never finish his food.
Contradictory: He will finish his food.
(In this example, doesn't have "not" in it.)

A claim is conditional if it can be rewritten as an "if...then..." claim that has to have the same truth-value.
In "If A, then B," claim A is the antecedent, and claim B is the consequent. (in a rewritten conditional)

For example:

Claim: Buy me food and I'll come.
Conditional: If you buy me food then I'll come.

Antecedent: Buy me food (this is the antecedent because it follows "if")
Consequent: I'll come.

Contradictory of a conditional: If A, then B has contradictory A but not B.

For example:

Conditional: If I don't know how to cook, then I'll burn the food.
Contradictory: I don't know how to cook, but I didn't burn the food.

Bad appeals to authority.

I thought reading this part of Chapter 5 (D. Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises) was very interesting because I can definitely relate to it in so many ways. It instantly reminded me of the peer pressure I get from some of my friends with drinking. I learned that we may appeal to “bad” authority (such as my friends) because of the bad appeal to common belief (a mistake to accept a claim as true just because a lot of other people believe it). Now, I can see why peer pressure is so hard to overcome. We often see our friends as authorities because it seems like they know what they’re talking about or that we don’t want to be embarrassed not to. For example, there are times when my friends would be talking about something and would throw in a word that I don’t know the meaning of and just be like, “Oh wow…” making them think that I understand just because I don’t want to be embarrassed not knowing what the word means. Or when my friends gossip and if I go against them, I’d be a bit embarrassed to say so and so I would just accept their claim. Going back to being pressured to drink. They always say, “Come on…it’s not like you’re going to die drinking…look, everyone else is drinking…” From this, it seems that they know what they’re talking about and you can see the bad appeal to common belief. 

Advertising on the Internet.

Part A: Evaluating Premises

Three choices we can make about whether to believe a claim:
1. Accept the claim is true.
2. Reject the claim as false.
3. Suspend judgment.

*If you don't believe it DON'T believe it is false.
*If there is a lack of evidence DON'T think the evidence is false.

With the "new MacBook Pro" ad we can either accept, reject, or suspend judgment on the claim of "State-of-the-art processors. All-new graphics. Breakthrough high speed I/O."

Part B: Criteria for Accepting or Rejecting Claims (in order of importance)

1. Personal experience
-Through personal experience, I own a Macbook Pro. Having it for almost two years, I can say that the laptop is great. I've noticed its phenomenal graphics and its high speed compared to other laptops. That means, I can definitely trust this ad of the new MacBook Pro being even better.
*We can reject the claim if we know it is false from our own experience except when we have a good reason to doubt our memory or perception; there is a contradiction between other experiences of ours, and there's a good argument against the claim.

2. Other sources
     a. Accept claim made by someone we know and trust who is an authority on this kind of claim.
          -In these terms, I don't know the person who made this claim and so I can't trust it.
     b. Accept claim made by a reliable authority whom we can trust as an expert on this certain kind of      claim and no incentive to mislead.
          -I don't know if the person who made this ad is a reliable authority.
     c. Accept claim in a reliable journal or reference source.
          -This is not a reliable journal or reference source.
     d. Accept a claim in a media outlet that is usually reliable.
          -This is not a media outlet.
    *e. Reject a claim that contradicts other claims that we know to be true.
          -I don't know any other claims (that I know to be true) that this claim can contradict.

By order of importance, I can accept the claim because of my positive personal experience with my MacBook Pro.

Repairing Arguments.

The Guide to Repairing Arguments

-When you have a flawed argument, you can add a premise or conclusion if it fulfills all 3:

1. Argument becomes stronger or valid.

2. Premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.

3. Premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Once the argument is valid or strong, you can take out a premise if it doesn’t make the argument worse.

Example:

No fish flies. So Nemo does not fly.

In order to make this a valid or strong argument we can add, “Nemo is a fish.” Because that is true, the argument is good. But, if we were to add “Nemo swims” it doesn’t make the argument any better so it would not satisfy making the argument valid or strong in the guide to repairing arguments.

We can’t have:

No fish flies. Nemo swims. So Nemo does not fly.

Now we have a repaired argument:

No fish flies. Nemo is a fish. So Nemo does not fly. 

Relationships between Superiors and Subordinates.

I thought this section of The Essential Guide to Group Communication book was interesting because I can relate to it. In a workplace organization, there are superiors (managers) and subordinates (employees). It is a team. This means that there is some type of communication between the employees and employers. It talks about how the boss and employee have to still communicate about what is going on in relation to the store. In my experience, I can see how the boss and employees communicate. Every morning, we have an informative morning rally. Before the store opens at 9:45am, the boss gathers all of us up and talks about how the store is doing in terms of customer service, how much sales we’ve made compared to last years, what our goal is, projects that are being done, which department is doing good, etc. Through this type of relation superiors and subordinates are able to perform an outstanding communicative behavior. 

Bad appeal to authority.

(Almost) anything that ________ says about _______ is (probably) true.

Bad appeal to authority is a fallacy in which an argument is presented through some authority, but this authority or witness might lack credibility. He or she might lack knowledge in that expertise, may be biased or prejudiced, might have a reason to lie, or may simply not remember or recall such information.

Example:

Ms. Mauro, my senior year of high school Physiology teacher, has told the class that in chemistry, covalent bonds is the strongest bond out of the three (covalent, ionic, hydrogen). Because of Ms. Mauro’s expertise in Physiology, we must conclude that this is true.

So you can say, overall:

(Almost) anything that Ms. Mauro says about chemistry is (probably) true.

*The conclusion involves chemistry, and the authority is an expert in Physiology. Since it is not reliable that a Physiology teacher would be an expert in chemistry, this argument is a bad appeal to authority. 

Structure of Arguments.

I’m on my way to school. 1  I left five minutes late. 2  Traffic is heavy. 3  Therefore, I’ll be late for class. 4  So I might as well stop and get breakfast. (5)

Argument? (yes or no) Yes, claims 1, 2, 3.

Conclusion: So I might as well stop and get breakfast.

Additional Premises Needed?

If someone is on his or her way to school and left five minutes late, and traffic is heavy, then he or she will be late for class. a

If someone will be late for class, he or she might as well stop and get breakfast. b

Identify any subargument: 1, 2, and 3 are independent and support 4. Then 4 supports the conclusion, 5.

Good argument? All the premises seem plausible. The premises seem more plausible than the conclusion. The argument is strong…when the premises could possibly be true, the conclusion of stopping and getting breakfast could be false (at the same time).

Wow, I didn’t know evaluating an argument could have so many steps to it. This exercise took me awhile, but it sure did help me out through organization. It opened my eyes and understanding of the different arguments out there that can seem good or bad in terms of it being valid, strong, or weak. 

Time Pressures.

I thought that the “Planning to Avoid Time Pressures” section of the Group Communication book was pretty interesting to me because I can be a big time procrastinator especially now with my busy schedule of school, work, and dance. I know that planning and coordinating is always the way to go, but most of the time I seem to never follow it. I tell myself to, when I’m at school, but once I’m home, nothing gets done. All I want to do is relax and do nothing at all. I plan to avoid the time pressures of having a paper or project due the next day or studying for a big test the night before, but most of the time it never works out and I end up being pressured in time. This section of the chapter just reminded me to not procrastinate and cram because it doesn’t help me at all. In the short run it does, but in the long run it doesn’t. Planning and coordinating ahead of time concludes with better results. Now, I just need to make sure this reminder sticks with me and I do something about my procrastination. I got to avoid time pressures. 

Strong vs. Valid.

With given premises, in any way, is the conclusion false?

If you answer “yes” to the question above, you get invalid arguments that can be strong (or weak). If you answer “no,” you get a valid argument.

Valid argument: No possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time); in other words, if the premises are true then conclusion should also be true.

Exampleà This school only allows students to wear khaki pants and a black shirt as a uniform. Therefore, all the students going to this school wear khaki pants and a black shirt.

*If the premises of the school only allowing students to wear wear khaki pants and a black shirt as a uniform is true, then the conclusion of all the students going to the school wear the khaki pants and a black shirt should also be true.

Strong argument: A possible way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time), though these possibilities are very unlikely; the premises are true, but the conclusion can and may also be false.

ExampleàAll the students my friend and I have seen at this school wear khaki pants and a black shirt. Therefore, all the students going to this school wear khaki pants and a black shirt.

*It is possible the my friend and I have seen all the students at the school wear khaki pants and a black shirt, but the conclusion of all the students going to the school wear khaki pants and a black shirt can and may be false.

Strong arguments (with true premises) can sometimes be better than valid ones that both end with the same conclusion.

Also, when deciding if an argument is strong or valid, it does not depend on:

1. if the premises are true,

2. if we know the premises are true, and

3. if the person making the arguments believes the argument is valid or strong.