Useful concept : Fallacies

         I felt that the concept of fallacies was really useful. Every single person in this world would have used a fallacy once in his or her lifetime. The statement that I used is a fallacy in itself. When i said "every singe" I was referring to every single human being in this world, but when you look at it, babies are human beings who still have not even started speaking. So there is no possible way they can come up fallacious statements / arguments. So, to re-word that sentence, most of the people have used fallacious arguments sometime in their lives. This is a really important concept to understand because one can easily get convinced with other's conclusion, especially when they are not providing enough or credible evidence.
           In addition, the words the use to form the argument really shapes its meaning. Being a business major, it is very important for me to understand the fallacies that is being used against me. After understand in depth about fallacies, I can deal with fallacies and question them back if they do try to persuade me with a fallacious argument / statement.

Most Favorite and Least Favorite

This class was a really good experience for me. The most favorite part about this class was, how we were given flexibility with our homework and other projects. On the other hand the least favorite part about this class was the fact that we had to communicate through e-mails, texts, and phone calls instead of communicating face to face.
I believe that the class can be improved in the form of having more in person conversations with the teacher. This will help us clarify more doubts in person, get immediate feedback. I also would have wanted more, clear details on the various assignments given. The directions were a little vague and unclear at times. It confused our group a lot of times.
Other than these small hiccups, the class had many other positives. The class improved my communication skills and taught me valuable lessons that will help me in the future.

What I have learned :

I have learned a lot over the semester. I got myself familiarized with a lot of concepts / skills such as, fallacies, leaderships, facilitating others, reasoning, and group work. Over the course of this semester, I learned how frequently people use fallacies in their argument to convince other people. Another interesting concept that I can relate to the real word is how we reason with others, using various types and methods of reasoning to make our argument strong and valid.
Apart from textbook concepts, I learned how to work with a group, communicate with them (mostly through e-mail and texts), direct a small group and how to take the initiative. It was a very tough challenge for me to help and talk with others via e-mail, but the way this class had been designed has helped me improve my communicating skills. I also learned key information relating to managing a small group. the facilitation project was a really good project as it helped me act and improvise according to the situation.
There were a lot of other concepts that I learned, but I felt that these were the important ones that will help me in the future.

Chapter 15 : Cause and Effect

I will be talking about Particular causes, generalizations and general causes.  there is no particular definition behind the concept. It is just laid on top of the basic definition of a cause and effect incident. Here, this example should clarify this concept :

A particular cause :
                  The sniper shot him at his heart; the man died on the spot.
This example shows how a cause, which happens once, creates an effect which also happens once. Now, in order to establish a relationship between these two incidents, we must look at this from various other possibilities. For instance, if the man shot him with a pistol gun, or a shot gun; or the distance between the two men. If these cases are tried, all these shots would kill the other.

Now, we can generalize this statement by stating that : A bullet shot at anyone's heart, will definitely lead to their death, unless they are wearing a bullet proof vest.

 This is basically what a particular cause and effect, and a generalization of causes is.

Mission Critical

This website has a lot of familiar concepts that we have studied during this semester. I took the freedom to go over the ones that we have not yet covered, or I personally have not read. For example, I went deductive reasoning in Conjunctions and Disjunctions. In other words, arguments with "or" or "and". I learned that during the "or" claims, you accept one case or the other, or you reject it all together. On the contrary, an "and" claim is where, you would accept all the cases, or reject one. Another concept that I went over was the "two wrong" fallacy. The "two wrong" appeal basically states that when a wrong action is performed based on another wrong action, it is called the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. An example for this fallacy would be,
Sam borrow's his best friend's watch, but never returns it.
Sam keep the watch with him , and does it give it back to his best friend.
Sam tells himself that his best friend would have done the same to him.
I learned a lot more concepts from this website. It provided loads of exercise problems, and clear definitions with examples. It was easy to reiterate the purpose and the definitions of various concepts.

Mission : Critical ( Causation)

This website was the same exact website that I used to answer the previous week's blog post. This website really helped me understand the clear definition and meaning behind causation. The example was really simple for me to analyze and incorporate. The website had a couple of general rules that really help me, like

1. The cause must precede the event in time. On one hand, arguments that have the effect before the cause are examples of the relatively rare fallacy of reverse causation. One the other, arguments whose only proof of causation is that the effect followed the cause are examples of fallacious post hoc reasoning.
2. Even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation. Other possible explanations for such a strong correlation include coincidence, reversed causation, and missing something that is the cause of both the original "cause" and and its purported "effect. ( Introduction to causal agreements ).    

Another helpful insight this website provided me was the practice option ( exercises ). The exercises just reinforced the basic concepts and gave me a wide spectrum of the various concepts within causation. 

Judging analogies

Judging analogies are basically analogies / arguments that are made without proper premises. In other words, your supporting claims do not completely back up your conclusion, hence, the other person ends up claiming that your claim is weak. In the words of Epstein, "one side of the analogy is like, the other side is too vague to use as  a premises."

For example :
An elephant eats anywhere between 200 to 400 pounds per day; on the other hand, humans on average consume anywhere between 3000 to 4000 calories per day.

So, does this mean that, all of the elephants combined eat more per day than all of the humans combined ?
Of course not !  This is an example of an argument trying to argue that what is true of an individual is true for the group . Furthermore, the type of food / diet a human follows is not clear. It would certainly differ. Other details for the elephant are if the elephant is a wild one, or a tamed one. Therefore, we can conclude that, with this as the example, the differences between the units of an individual and the group is too large to analyze.

Causal Reasoning

I had a tough time coming with a proper explanation for causal reasoning. I was able to understand the the purpose of such a reasoning. I searched for variousexplanations for the reasoning and found a really interesting one. "These causal arguments, then, follow the form of an inductive argument with one important exception: whereas an inductive argument carries as part of its second premise the implication that there is otherwise no significant difference, these causal arguments carry the implication that there is only one significant difference" (Introduction to Causal Arguments). I could easily relate this with the example I gave in my previous post :


My example :


A car is traveling at speed limit, and suddenly swerves and hits another car trying to avoid a kid who was threatened to run across the road.  The people in car can argue that, the kid who ran across them caused them to change directions unexpectedly. The kid can argue that, his friends threatened him which caused him to do that action. 


Hence, for every single action there is only one and only one cause for that action. For the kid, he was threatened; for the car, it was the kid. That particular definition really helped me understand this concept clearly. 

Reasonings

Here are a list of examples for the different types of reasonings :

1 ) deductive reasoning : 

All cows are mammals

All mammals have hearts

So, all cows have hearts

2 ) Inductive reasoning : 

Pau Gasol is an excellent basketball player. So, his children are going to be excellent basketball players as well.

3 ) Analogy by reasoning : 

Assume that you are going to go buy a brand new car. You talk with your friends who recently bought new cars. They tell you that, they are delighted with the new cars they bought from New Cars. So, you are likely to conclude by analogy that, if you buy a new car from New Cars, you will be delighted as well.

4 ) Causal reasoning 

A car is traveling at speed limit, and suddenly swerves and hits another car trying to avoid a kid who was threatened to run across the road.  The people in car can argue that, the kid who ran across them caused them to change directions unexpectedly. The kid can argue that, his friends threatened him which caused  him to do that action. 

5 ) Criteria Reasoning :

Chef 1 : This dish must taste delicious . 

Chef 2 : Then why don't we add some bay leaves, and cloves ?

6 ) Reasoning with examples :

In order for you to be successful in life, you must work a minimum of 10,000 hours in that field; Just like how Bill Gates and Kobe Bryant did (Gladwell , Outliers ). 

7 ) Argument with signs :

Wayne is walking with out his crutches and is able to move his foot in different directions; He is showing signs of recovery. 

Appeal to Spite

An appeal to spite is a type of appeal to emotion. An appeal to spite involves a person trying to reach his objective without providing evidence or support for his claim. According to the Encyclopedia, an appeal to spite is " An `appeal to spite` (also called `argumentum ad odium`) is a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. Instead of an argument being made with supporting facts or evidence, the argument is made that you should or should not do something simply out of spite. " 


Here is an example for this fallacy :


X : Oh wow, Y gave an excellent presentation. I am going to vote for Y's presentation. I think she deserves the trophy. 
Z : Yes, I agree, but do not remember that Y did not select your presentation last year ?
X : Oh yea ! You are right, I change my mind. I will not vote for Y.


This is a simple example for an appeal to spite. This is purely based on getting revenge, without providing evidence or support to the claim. Hence, as Epstein states "an appeal to spite often invokes the "principle" that two wrongs make a right" (Epstein , 193). On the contrary, there are times when a claim that evokes a feeling of spite can be judged as an true, factual evidence. 

Advertisement : Appeal to Fear !

An appeal to fear is supposed to instill a quick flash of fear in you regarding the situation. The ad that I found on the internet did create a moment of fear. The way the company used its advertising strategy to use the appeal to fear, is very well done.

http://www.penn-olson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/WWF-22.jpg

The ad basically depicts an action that has a negative effect on us, and in this case the planet as well. This ad caught my attention, and it made me believe that, the way we humans are dealing with this issue is wrong. This is exactly how an appeal to fear ad should do. On the contrary, there are a couple of view points, which can be noted as ineffective. This might lead people to jump over the purpose of the message. But, this ad does not have as many ineffective ways to grab the attention of the public. So, this ad was simple, clear, effective, and good.

Appeal to Emotion :

An appeal to emotion is " an argument with a prescriptive conclusion, can be good or can be bad. Being alert to the use of emotion helps clarify the kinds of premises needed in such an argument, so we can more easily analyze it" (Epstein, 194). So, an appeal to emotion is used to change / manipulate others' emotions in order to gain their acceptance towards our claim. In other words, the way one succeeds in achieving this, is when the use of strong emotions are being substituted for evidence to back up claims. 

Many well known organizations, brands, and companies use this appeal to gain power, and support. Here is one such example :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eMmcMK_3Ao

This ad, shows there is no evidence to show that the Porche is really as good as they say it is. Instead, the bring out this kid, and make you feel sorry and attached to the kid in the ad. 

The example is also a way of appealing to pity.  In India, appealing to pity is probably the most common means of  convincing people. I particularly find this appeal appealing because, it is very easy to change a person's emotion, than to change their rational thoughts and ideas. In addition, emotions can be easily changed especially when facing depression. 

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.