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.