Further Discussion : Fallacies

I had a tough time dealing with fallacies. There are so many fallacies that we need to know, in order to avoid using fallacies in our arguments. Furthermore, the textbook does not make it any easier for us to learn these fallacies, as it states / defines these fallacies in just one sentence. This is the first time I'm learning about fallacies, and clearly the textbook did not help me. Most of the fallacies are confusing, and closely related to each other. Thus, I used a lot of outside sources in order to identify and familiarize myself with fallacies.
 This was a great source for understanding fallacies :

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

It provides minute details, and problems each fallacy has in it. It gives us examples, and tips to identify different fallacies. This website also helps us identify fallacies in our own work. I was glad to have looked into this web page, cause most of my assigned part on our papers, was to identify fallacies.

Here is an example of one of the fallacies they mention :

Red herring

Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent—the fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument? Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion?

Assignment

           Both the assignments were very helpful and knowledge gaining experiences. The first assignment was a little more challenging in the context of getting to know each other, and what each member's strengths and weaknesses are. The second assignment was trying to use those strengths and weaknesses to our advantage. For example, one of our group members is really good with the computers. We asked her to assist us on small problems we faced, like margin adjustments and formating the texts. We had another member who would speak just one or two sentences and make an impact with just that one sentence. The knowledge that I gained out of these two assignments was plenty. I learned how to format a paper in APA style, and learned about a global, social organization. Regardless of all these important concepts, the most important and valuable concept that I was able to enhance was my communication skills. Our group met only a handful of times to get our information together, but most of our discussions would take place either via email or texts. It was also a great opportunity to take a small leadership role. Everybody had their own parts and were leaders for themselves. It was a very enjoyable experience.  

Chapter 8 : General Claims

General claims are basically claims that broaden the view point for the arguer's subject. In this context, a subject can be referred to as "all" or "some". I shall give you an example regarding these two situations below :
Using "All" :
Claim : All parrots are Birds.
This is a valid claim. This claim also generalizes and broadens the subject. This claim does not have a contradictory. The contradictory to this argument would be : No parrots are birds ( which is false ). Hence, there is no contradictory to this claim.

Here is an example for a "some" claim :
Claim : Some human beings have 6 fingers.
Contradicting claim : Some human beings have 5 fingers.

Epstein, in chapter 8 also talks about the reasoning in a chain with "all"
The author states that, only if a particular format is followed, then this method of reasoning will end up valid.
The format to be followed is :
All "S" are "P"
All "P" are "Q"
So all "S" are "Q"

Here is an example for this method :

All Corollas are cars
All cars are automobiles
So all Corollas are automobiles

Now, I shall leave you guys to think about this one :
All eggs are from chickens
All chickens are from eggs
So all eggs are from eggs
        ?????????

Conditionals

I am sure most of you have had a conditional task, or a question put forward to you. That is, when someone uses an "if" in their argument, or statement, it basically implies a conditional.

The textbook defines a conditional claim as "a claim, which can be rewritten as an "if...then..." claim that must have the same truth - value. In a conditional claim, "If A, then B", the claim A is the antecedent, and the claim B is the consequent" (Epstein, 121).

So, a conditional claim follows a pattern of "If A, then B", but here is the fun part; a claim does not have to state an "if" or a "then" in order to make it a conditional claim. These key words can be implied, and looked at as a conditional. For example :

" You do my homework, I won't tell on you".

Here the antecedent is - If you do my homework

and the consequent is -I won't tell on you

Chapter 7 : Counter Arguments

         Chapter seven is all about how to counter argue.  Counter arguments are claims that can derived only if the original argument has support. If one can back up his / her claims, to refute and reject an opposing claim, then that conversation is heavily relied on counter arguing. One makes a counter argument, because the other believes that the original claim is false, and that the premises are weak and lack support. Counter arguments can go back and forth as many times as they want in order to prove the other's premises and claim is false, but with supporting claims of their own. If there is a lack of supporting claims, then there would be no reason to believe in the claims or counter arguments that are put forward.
           Here is one of the ways to counter argue with - Refuting Directly. Refuting directly is a simplistic way to counter argue. This method involves the counter argument to "show that at least one of the premises is dubious ; show that the argument isn't valid or strong ; show that the conclusion is false" (Epstein, 159).
          Another method to counter argue is by reducing to the absurd. The book states that "to reduce to the absurd is to show that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively they are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them" (Epstein, 150).

Chapter 6 : Compund Claims :

      This chapter was a confusing chapter. I learnt a couple of key concepts from this chapter. Its overall objective was basically to tell us that, claims can be joined by key words and made into a single, strong claim. Such a claim would be know as a compound claim. The art of combining claims to make it a stronger claim is very difficult. The key fact in this version of a claim is that, when two or more claims are combined, they should not be viewed as many claims, rather just as one claim.
       Another way a claim can be made strong and interesting if one reasons with "or" claims. This type of claim basically states that : "A or B, not A; So B" (Epstein, 117).  This lays a strong foundation for many of the claims to be structured as valid. It is easier for one to asses the argument, and provide reasonable claims to support their argument. In other words, this form can help reduce other possibilities, thus increasing the chances for the argument to be valid. As we have learned, a valid argument, does not have to be a strong one.

The Principle of Rational Discussion

           The term Rational discussion should give you an insight on what is going to be defined in this post. The whole purpose of an argument is to convince the other person, with valid, strong, and logical reasons. So in order for the other person to be convinced, the one who is arguing and making the claims should :
1. Know the subject under discussion
2 ) Be able and willing to reason well
3 ) Not lie
( Epstein, Critical Thinking, Pg 60)

The arguer should have enough background knowledge about the idea he/she is going to argue about. If one does not have the sufficient information regarding the topic, his argument would certainly not convince the other person. The argument does not become valid, just because the arguer talks about an issue that the other person does not know. So, it is the duty of the arguer to also fill in the blanks for the other person in order to argue and convince them.
The act of convincing someone travels through many different paths. That is, people get convinced either by watching the news, reading the news papers, or even word of mouth. There are many arguers who get convinced and try to pass the message on to others. These arguers obtain only the convincing message and forget why they got convinced, and why they should convince other people. Thus, such people lack the reasoning capacity to rationally form their arguments.
Finally, an argument should not contain lies. If there are lies that can easily be detected, the other person is not going to be convinced. Lies always deteriorate the impact of the argument. It has happened to me many times. I have tried to argue with my mother, with the support of lies, and my mother sees right through it. I end up not convincing my mother to reach my objective.
The author of Critical Thinking also mentions that, if there are equally good arguments from both sides of the coin, then it is best to look into both sides and then come to a conclusion.

Rejecting and Accepting Claims : Advertisement

This is the ad that I have chosen : Ray Lewis's Old Spice Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnLN6DuHXPQ&feature=channel

The claims in the ad are :

Women want me

Men want to be me

Animals want to learn how to talk, so that they can hang out with me

“Greatest Smell in the NFL “

Conclusion: Because old spice soaks out deodorants

The premises might be true for Ray Lewis. This is where ads can be very tricky. They project premises that are true only for the character in the commercial, but not for the viewers. I reject these claims through personal experiences. I use Old Spice every day, just because it is cheap. First of all, the premises targeted for Ray Lewis definitely do not apply to me. Not all women want me; not all men want to be me; and certainly, animals did want not to hang out with me just because I apply Old Spice.  Second, the theory behind animals wanting to learn how to talk, just because a person has Old Spice on, is illogical. It is highly difficult to even understand a human being’s thoughts, how can one understand that of an animal’s.

I also think that his premises are wage and weak. The conclusion is also as weak as the premises. One of the premises: "Men want to be me” is a very debatable claim. This is because, that claim relates to either his character, or  his body (physique). If the claim is regarding his character, then I know that most men do not want to be him, because his ratings have dropped after “he avoided murder charges and jail time in 2000” (CNN Sports Illustrated). I personally would never want to be like Ray Lewis, even if I have Old Spice on me. Therefore, I reject the claims.