Week 12 Discussion: Post 3

 Tracing the cause backwards

                   In chapter 15 of the Epstein book, I liked the section regarding “Tracing the cause backwards”. I found it easy to ready and very entertaining with the illustrations. As described in the book, you only trace back to the first step. If you go further back it “it becomes too hard to fill in the normal conditions”. If you go too far back it makes it unobvious to what actually caused something.

Example: Not studying cause Jane to fail her test.

                     Jane didn’t study since she was tired. Being tried caused Jane to fail her test.

                     Jane was tired because she worked all day. Work caused Jane to fail her test.

                     Jane worked all day because she needed to pay her bills. Bills caused Jane to fail her test.

Jane had to pay her bills since she is she has responsibilities. Responsibilities caused Jane to fail her test.

With this example we could go on forever. Each different cause created the same effect, so it is best to stop at the first step. 

Week 12 Discussion: Post 2

Mission Critical website

                  The Mission Critical website was really useful! I wish I knew about this website when we first started the class! I liked that it had an outline of links for different types of arguments and fallacies. It was easy to locate a subject and then read about it. I thought each link was very useful to reinforcing the subjects we already learned and helped me understand some of the subjects that I didn’t really comprehend. I also like that it was interactive. Most of the links had exercises that directly told you the answers to the questions. If the answer was correct it showed why it was correct. If it was incorrect it described why you were incorrect. I found that very useful because most of these concepts are not hard but tricky. The explanations of why they are wrong are really helpful especially since this an online class and there’s not someone else to refer to. 

Week 12 Discussion: Post 1

Cause and Effect Website

                  On the Cause and effect website, the main lesson taught was casual arguments. A casual argument is the relationship between events that cause another but only having “one significant difference”. I liked the example about a how lawyers would approach the situation, it really showed different perspectives and showed the significant differences of the cause of the accident and the the outcome of the accident. With this example it showed how lawyers reason to get a logical outcome. The website also outlines the strengths of a casual argument and what they rely on. They are “how acceptable or demonstrate able the implied comparison is”, “how likely the causation seems to be”, and how credible the claims are. The strengths listed helped me understand how to determine the actual cause and effect. What I liked most about this website was that they outlines things well. All the main points were pointed out in bold and were easy to follow. Though it was outlined well, I found it very unpleasant with the lengthy paragraphs; it felt intimidating reading this especially when you’re tired L. Overall it was a useful website. 

Week 11 Discussion: Post 3

Judging Analogies

In chapter 12, Epstein writes about judging analogies. To judge a vague analogy, you must study the similarities of the analogies then identify the important ones to conclude a general principle that applies to both sides.

Example: Michael Phelps is a competitive swimmer and swims for the US Swim team. In 2009, Michael Phelps was on off-season and was photographed using a bong to smoke what was reported tobacco or marijuana.  Due to the photograph, he was suspended from the US Swim team. Swimmers should be kicked off the team for their use of illegal drugs.

The general principle of the use of illegal drugs applies both sides of the analogies: the possession of drugs for an off-season swimmer and the possession of drugs on a swimmer on the US swim team. Since the possession of illegal drugs has the same consequence to people on a swim team and people off a swim 

Week 11 Discussion: Post 2

Reasoning by Criteria

Many of these types of reasoning were hard to understand because there weren’t definition and examples in the book to help clarify the type of reasoning. For me, I thought that reasoning by criteria was the hardest to understand. Reasoning by criteria is knowing the best outcome by understanding the criteria that the outcome will be based on. From my previous post I used the example, “Taking a class early in the morning would be difficult to keep awake in, how about you take a class in the afternoon?”.  The outcome is taking an afternoon class. The criteria to take a afternoon class would be that morning classes are too early to keep awake in. Another example is “That blouse fits loose on you, you should really try a smaller size to ensure that the blouse fits nicely.” The outcome is trying a smaller size, while the criteria is that the blouse is loose. I found that the changing minds webpage had a reasonable explanation of the subject but links at the bottom where it said “see also” really helped into making this subject clear to me. When I read the similar reasoning types to reasoning by criteria it made it easier for me to grasp the concept. 

Week 11 Discussion: Post 1

Reasoning Examples

1). Reasoning by Analogy: A comparison where one side draws a conclusion and the other concludes the same conclusion.

Ex. Getting a degree increases the chance of getting a job with a higher salary. If all students graduate with a degree, then they will have higher salaries.

                 

2). Sign Reasoning: When two or more things are closely related to each other and significantly changes the relationship if one is in absence.

                  Ex. “Where’s the fire, there’s the smoke”

3). Causal Reasoning: The reasoning that describes the reasoning between the cause and effect of an event.

Ex. The boy drives in his car down the road. The boy is under the influence of alchohol. The boy crashes into a tree.

*The relationship between the boy driving down the road and crashing into the tree is caused by drunk driving.

                 

4). Reasoning by Criteria: identifying the criteria that the outcome will be based on, then identifying the decision based on the criteria.

Ex. Taking a class early in the morning would be difficult to keep awake in, how about you take a class in the afternoon?

5). Reasoning by Example: The use of examples in an argument.

Ex. You should really buy that lace top. I get many compliments when I wear that lace top. I think it would look great on you too. 

6). Inductive Reasoning: Reasoning from general previous observations.

Ex. The weather starts to get warmer beginning in the month of June. Tomorrow is the first day of June, the weather will be warmer.

7). Deductive:  An argument when the conclusion must be true when the premises are true.

Ex. All SJSU students must take 2 PE courses to graduate. Joe is an SJSU student so he must take 2 PE courses to graduate.  

Week 10 Discussion: Post 3

Apple Polishing

Apple Polishing is an appeal to vanity. Appeal to vanity is defined by making someone do something by allowing them an opportunity to make him or her feel better about herself or himself. It is basically appealing to the pride or self esteem of a person. When that is reached, the favor would be done because it makes the person look good or feel better about themselves by doing it. Apple polishing is often times used by advertisements, especially when selling products. 

The advertisement above is for Pantene. It states “Pantene that’s healthy looking hair”. Their motive is to gain buyers by promoting healthy looking hair. By saying “look at Kelly’s hair, don’t you want good looking hair like her too?” they are using an unsaid premise to make you think about what their product will acutally do to you. The apple polishing technique used by Pantene gains people by convincing them that having healthy looking great hair will make them feel good about themselves.