It was very helpful to use this online resource because not only did it give real world example, but it explained causation very clearly. Sometimes in the Epstein book some of the concepts can be hard to understand. There is not always a lot of clarity when it comes to definitions and such. In the example of the traffic accident with the cyclist the author of the webpage explains how the cause and effects are in fact products of inductive reasoning. Some things like the accident explained in this website happen every day, it is good knowledge to know that this can be used in real life situations. Some of my classes I sit and think to myself, “When will this ever apply to life? Why am I learning this information?” When it comes to the topic of cause and effect it becomes a lot more clear that these arguments can actually be put to good use.
While going through the different types of reasoning the professor assigned I though reasoning by analogy to be difficult to understand in some ways. After reading through the explanations on this website I was able to understand a lot better.
http://www4.samford.edu/schools/netlaw/dh2/logic/analogy.htm
Before reading this website I wasn’t aware that reasoning by analogy was a type of inductive reasoning. To break down the concept an analogy is comparing two things that are similar to explain one of the things. The structure is like this:
X is like Y or B is similar to C.
An example of this in day to day life would be in a situation where someone felt that giving an analogy would better prove their point, rather than a straight definition.
“There is nothing like going to Hawaii in the spring, it’s truly like heaven on earth.”
This person is comparing Hawaii to heaven, this gives the person listening the idea of how amazing Hawaii is in the spring.
Reasoning by Analogy:
Reasoning by analogy is a way to compare two things that are similar to each other. An example of this type of reasoning would be, “Blair’s language is like that of a sailor!” Comparing Blair’s cursing with a sailor is a way to say that her language isn’t acceptable, without having to say that in all those words.
Sign Reasoning:
Sign reasoning in arguments is used with evidence or with an implied explanation. For example if Blair were to say, “In high school, there are no classes held on Saturday and Sunday.” There is evidence that this is true. You can go to a high school and you will see no student rushing from class to class, there is a sign there is no class held on these days.
Casual Reasoning:
With casual reasoning the use of cause and effects base the argument. By using causal reasoning one event relates to another event. An example of this would be if Blair studies for hours for her COMM midterm, she will pass it. It is assumed that if you study, you will pass. This is not always a valid argument, but it usually holds true.
Reasoning by Criteria:
Reasoning by criteria is a way of judging a situation by the circumstance. An example of reasoning by criteria would be, “Blair stopped at the stop sign,” because the law is to stop at a stop sign, every time.
Reasoning by example:
Reasoning by example is creating an argument based on an example you could use from passed events.
For example, “Don’t go to Disney Land, the lines are too long and everything is so expensive.” This person is saying that there are negative outcome from going to Disney Land, so it would be best not to go.
Inductive:
Results from specific observations.
Deductive:
Not such specific observations.
It is almost in our blood to feel as if revenge is a necessary action when one feels that they have been wronged. Appeal to spite is an interesting concept in that is it definitely a secondary emotion, but very powerful none-the-less. As humans we feel many different types of emotion, we are very complex beings. An example of appeal to spite would be as follows:
Dave: Can you help me trim the trees in my front yard?
Al: Well Dave, where were you when I was pulling weeds at my place last Sunday? You said you were too busy.
Dave is asking Al for a favor, but Al feels that it wouldn’t be fair if he went over and helped Dave because he was absent from helping Al with his yard work last weekend. This appeal to emotion does not make for a valid argument, but a good argument yes.
Appeal to emotion is a powerful way to make an audience believe what one is trying to argue. Using appeal to emotion is a different way of approaching an argument though making an individual feel an emotion like sadness. According to Epstein, “An appeal to emotion in an argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way.” It is sometimes more influential to appeal to ones emotion over logic. An example of appeal to emotion would be the following:
“I just saw a commercial about abused cats and dogs. I had to turn my head away because it was so sad; I even almost started crying! I think I’m going to call and donate money to them.”
This person felt if he or she were to call the company and donate, they would be helping the animals, which they felt sad for.
In Chapter eight, we are introduced to a concept where diagrams are used to show how certain types of arguments work. These diagrams express valid and invalid forms. This was of viewing certain arguments opens up a whole other way of looking at things. This way of working out claims makes a lot more sense to me, being able to see what goes where creates more clarity in my mind.
Examples:
Strong: Football players are male. Danny is male. Therefore, Danny is a football player.
Weak: Football players are male. Danny is a football player. Therefore, Danny is male.
A diagram that expressed what the strong argument would be as follows:
Largest Circle: Male
Middle Circle: Football Players
Smallest (inside middle circle): Danny
It can be seen that all Football players are male, and Danny fits into the categories of both being male and being a football player. This visual scenario can help one see an argument in a different light!
Both of the first major assignments taught me a lot, but I definitely favored one over the other. I felt that the second course assignment was more helpful than the first course assignment. The first assignment; "Critical Thinking in News and Politics," wasn't very helpful for me. I didn't find to be all that interesting, and I wasn't very familiar with what an editorial was to begin with. The second assignment called, "Critical Thinking and Social Organizations" has been a lot more interesting. By knowing how my group operates, I've been able to judge the paper better. I also enjoyed learning more about the social organization my group chose, which was PETA. Learning about more than just the surface points that the organization is making, and actually seeing what PETA does really opened my eyes even as a vegetarian myself. Writing about news and politics doesn’t really interest me, so the flow of writing was a little more difficult for me.
Chapter eight introduces a concept that is used quite often in day-to-day life. The concept is called general claims. General claim are claims that involve words like "all" or "some." When a person used the word "all" there is a strong meaning behind it, "all" means every single one. For example if a student were to say to a teacher, "All of the people in this class hate your teaching style." This is too general, even if this student asked around and everyone said they hated his methods, regardless there may be one student who wasn't telling the truth. In this case, this claim would be false. By using the word "some" in a claim, there can be some misunderstanding of what “some” really is. For example if I were to say, some of the people I work with are getting a raise in January and only one person gets a raise, does that constitute some? Generalizing can lead to a weak and invalid argument, it’s better to use real numbers, statistics, or other solid facts when trying to make a good argument.
While reading chapter six under necessary and sufficient conditions, I found the concept called contrapositives interesting because it is one way to understand conditional statements a little better. Conditional claims are “if, then…” statements which ties in with contrapositive claims. The definition of a contrapositive is where a claim and its contrapositive are equal. It’s a little hard to explain, but by giving an example it’s easier to understand! As I read in the book, showing a conditional with the contrapositive is better way of understanding the concept as well. An example of a contrapositive would be the following statements:
If you failed your math exam, then you didn’t study prior.
Contrapositive: If you studied for your math exam, you passed your test.
This shows the formula If A, then B & If not A, then not B. Contrapositive statements can be a little tough to understand, but when comparing them with conditional statements one can have a better perspective.
In most cases, if an argument is worded in a way that one agrees with, automatically we believe that argument is valid. This is not always the case. When raising an objection in an argument one must show that an argument is defined as bad. For instance let's say I'm trying to get you to buy a dog rather a cat.
Everyone should own a dog. 1
Dog’s are man’s best friend. 2
Dog’s can do tricks, whereas cats cannot. 3
Dogs are cuter than cats. 4
For this example none of these reasons are valid to argue that dogs are better than cats, if you are a dog owner already, you may agree with these statements. To show that this argument is dubious, one would point out that saying, “Dog’s are man’s best friend,” is just a biased statement and hold no truth. Subjective and opinionated statements do not make for a valid argument.
