Chapter eight of Epstein introduces a great concept concerning the discovery of an argument's validity. The textbook provides many points in proving or disproving the validity. Page 164 of the Epstein illustrates the concept bullet by bullet, ultimately conveying six important points in understanding and creating this diagram. (1) The first defines the representation of a particular area that is enclosed, called a collection. (2) The second clarifies the idea that if one area is inside another area completely, then all that is inside that one area will also be in the other. (3) The third describes if a part of an area goes over inside another, then there will be a shared portion, meaning there's a commonality, among the two. (4) The fourth is the exclamation that if two areas do not happen to go over one another, then there will be no connection of either one to the other. (5) The fifth establishes a point in an area, shown as an "a" or dot, that demonstrates that a certain object belongs in that collection. (6) The sixth lastly explains the ability of being able to draw places or areas in that "represent the premises as true while trying to represent the conclusion as false," (164) and what it means if it is successful (the argument is invalid) and vice versa (the argument is valid).
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Discussion Question Number Two: Part Six
Usefulness of Course Assignments
Both of the assignments from this course so far have been tremendously helpful in improving a person's skills in analyzing and identifying certain arguments and concepts particularly learned from Epstein and the other Group Communications handbook. I really enjoyed doing the second assignment, seeing what the other group members had to say about the chosen organization, and what they were able to find from their online website. It's always great being able to become aware of organizations that take time out of their day to help endless people from a variety of unfortunate situations, whether it is by providing meals, clothing, or comfort, they all do something to help plenty of people feel better. Aside from learning about impact the organization creates, I also learned about the certain techniques they use to grab the reader's attention and create credibility and good reason to believe the arguments they are claiming. Plenty of organizations use celebrities to pull in the attention of readers who otherwise may not be as interested without the known figure present. Statistics also have a big part in achieving a hook and a sort of shock to keep the reader's interest. There's also a way of learning more and getting a clearer idea about these things, as well as about concealed claims, reasoning, fallacies, judgment (suspending, etc.), advertising, and emotion to appeal, and what kinds are used, or if they are presented if at all.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Discussion Question Number One: Part Six
Chapter Eight: General Claims
In this chapter, I found the explanation of how Epstein, along with many other concepts, a contradictory can come from any sort of general claim, which in realization, can be especially common with the plentiful groups of counterarguments and disagreements that can distribute contradictories in a person's argument. The text defines two terms that are used in arguments that can result with contradictories: "all" and "some". All is defined as "every single one, no exceptions," however, this term can vary by meaning "every single one, and there is at least one" (160). The variation will simply depend on the kind of argument presented. Some is defined as "at least one" or "at least one, but not all". (160) Again, the variation will lie on the kind of argument that is being talked about. The contradictory of a claim won't be its direct opposite, but rather its adjacent, so to speak. The example explained in the text illustrates the claim being that all dogs bark. The contradictory to that won't be its direct opposite (all dogs don't bark), but rather the adjacent: some dogs don't bark.
A personal example:
All mothers are women. (claim)
But not all women are mothers. (contradictory)
I, for instance, am a woman, but am not a mother. So by someone making that first sentence as their claim, there can be the possibility of someone else objecting and replying with the contradictory argument that simply because all mothers are women may not always mean or doesn't indicate that all women all mothers. There can be no interchanging of the words, especially in this case.
In this chapter, I found the explanation of how Epstein, along with many other concepts, a contradictory can come from any sort of general claim, which in realization, can be especially common with the plentiful groups of counterarguments and disagreements that can distribute contradictories in a person's argument. The text defines two terms that are used in arguments that can result with contradictories: "all" and "some". All is defined as "every single one, no exceptions," however, this term can vary by meaning "every single one, and there is at least one" (160). The variation will simply depend on the kind of argument presented. Some is defined as "at least one" or "at least one, but not all". (160) Again, the variation will lie on the kind of argument that is being talked about. The contradictory of a claim won't be its direct opposite, but rather its adjacent, so to speak. The example explained in the text illustrates the claim being that all dogs bark. The contradictory to that won't be its direct opposite (all dogs don't bark), but rather the adjacent: some dogs don't bark.
A personal example:
All mothers are women. (claim)
But not all women are mothers. (contradictory)
I, for instance, am a woman, but am not a mother. So by someone making that first sentence as their claim, there can be the possibility of someone else objecting and replying with the contradictory argument that simply because all mothers are women may not always mean or doesn't indicate that all women all mothers. There can be no interchanging of the words, especially in this case.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Discussion Question Number Three: Part Five
Reasoning in a Chain and the Slippery Slope
In Chapter 6, I really took interest in Epstein's concept of reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. The process of setting up these concepts come from setting up an event where because a person does one thing, another person will do something, which will lead the former person to do something else. In other words, it becomes if A, then B; if A then C; so if A, then C. A chain or reasoning is essentially a chain of conditionals according to the text. However, because the way the conclusion is brought, and the way it reads, sounds silly and dubious, it can lead to an overall bad, yet valid argument. The antecedent starts off reasonable, but then comes the slippery slope of going from one conditional to the other that leads to the conclusion, and therefore, the concept of if A, then C. To prevent this slippery slope, you have to be aware, recognize, and point out one or some of the conditionals from the argument's implausibility.
Example:
If I don't get started on my reading now, then I won't have time to go to dinner.
If I don't go to dinner, I won't get to eat.
So if I don't get started on my reading, I can't eat.
The antecedent starts out well and strong, but as the conditionals are laid out one after the other, the argument gets weaker, and because of that, the consequent becomes something of a dubious and implausible nature.
In Chapter 6, I really took interest in Epstein's concept of reasoning in a chain and the slippery slope. The process of setting up these concepts come from setting up an event where because a person does one thing, another person will do something, which will lead the former person to do something else. In other words, it becomes if A, then B; if A then C; so if A, then C. A chain or reasoning is essentially a chain of conditionals according to the text. However, because the way the conclusion is brought, and the way it reads, sounds silly and dubious, it can lead to an overall bad, yet valid argument. The antecedent starts off reasonable, but then comes the slippery slope of going from one conditional to the other that leads to the conclusion, and therefore, the concept of if A, then C. To prevent this slippery slope, you have to be aware, recognize, and point out one or some of the conditionals from the argument's implausibility.
Example:
If I don't get started on my reading now, then I won't have time to go to dinner.
If I don't go to dinner, I won't get to eat.
So if I don't get started on my reading, I can't eat.
The antecedent starts out well and strong, but as the conditionals are laid out one after the other, the argument gets weaker, and because of that, the consequent becomes something of a dubious and implausible nature.
Discussion Question Number Two: Part Five
(Counterarguments)
Raising Objections
By raising objections, you are essentially showing that an argument is bad, which according to the text is the standard way of revealing an argument's weakness or badness in its structure and whatnot. There generally is another argument made that questions its original when raising objections in order to better see, and generally compare and expose, in what ways the argument falters in. According to Epstein, raising objections is something of a common nature. It's something many people do in order to make the best possible decision, especially if one is doubtful, which is by going through other possibilities and conflicts that can happen if the original argument follows through. You have to question and question, argument and counterargument, to really see through the claims faults and weaknesses. Being able to recognize the faults in the argument is a very good way to show that the person writing or saying the argument is aware of the other possibilities and questionable concepts. There is also knocking off an objection, which is a smaller argument within the argument.
Refuting an Argument
There are two ways to refute an argument. The first is refuting in argument directly. Ways to refute an argument directly are shown in three ways: (1) showing that one argument (at the very least) can be doubted, (2) showing that the argument isn't strong or valid, (3) or showing the the conclusion from the argument is false altogether. The second way to refute an argument is refuting it indirectly. The texts explains that at times it becomes difficult to show how an argument can seem false or doubtful because it isn't always stated directly--but yet, there is a feeling of a dubious argument present. Reducing to the absurd is a way of refuting an argument's alleged false claims, in that a person goes to disprove them by means of coming towards a conclusion that leads to absurdity and dubious claims itself---an "unwanted conclusion". (150) The likeliness of a false premises heightens between a valid and strong argument (the latter being the more likely of false premises). If the conclusion turns out to be absurd, then it becomes that you don't have the premises you want. The text explains that you have to be very certain that an argument is solid and strong (as well as does not have any other dubious claims) "to get the false or absurd conclusion". (150) This is when it becomes in good thought and reason to see that there is something wrong with the claims primarily stated. Refuting an analogy is introduced, which is keeping crucial ideas, but using simply some of the premises to get to the ideal absurd end of the claim.
Raising Objections
By raising objections, you are essentially showing that an argument is bad, which according to the text is the standard way of revealing an argument's weakness or badness in its structure and whatnot. There generally is another argument made that questions its original when raising objections in order to better see, and generally compare and expose, in what ways the argument falters in. According to Epstein, raising objections is something of a common nature. It's something many people do in order to make the best possible decision, especially if one is doubtful, which is by going through other possibilities and conflicts that can happen if the original argument follows through. You have to question and question, argument and counterargument, to really see through the claims faults and weaknesses. Being able to recognize the faults in the argument is a very good way to show that the person writing or saying the argument is aware of the other possibilities and questionable concepts. There is also knocking off an objection, which is a smaller argument within the argument.
Refuting an Argument
There are two ways to refute an argument. The first is refuting in argument directly. Ways to refute an argument directly are shown in three ways: (1) showing that one argument (at the very least) can be doubted, (2) showing that the argument isn't strong or valid, (3) or showing the the conclusion from the argument is false altogether. The second way to refute an argument is refuting it indirectly. The texts explains that at times it becomes difficult to show how an argument can seem false or doubtful because it isn't always stated directly--but yet, there is a feeling of a dubious argument present. Reducing to the absurd is a way of refuting an argument's alleged false claims, in that a person goes to disprove them by means of coming towards a conclusion that leads to absurdity and dubious claims itself---an "unwanted conclusion". (150) The likeliness of a false premises heightens between a valid and strong argument (the latter being the more likely of false premises). If the conclusion turns out to be absurd, then it becomes that you don't have the premises you want. The text explains that you have to be very certain that an argument is solid and strong (as well as does not have any other dubious claims) "to get the false or absurd conclusion". (150) This is when it becomes in good thought and reason to see that there is something wrong with the claims primarily stated. Refuting an analogy is introduced, which is keeping crucial ideas, but using simply some of the premises to get to the ideal absurd end of the claim.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Discussion Question Number One: Part Five
Compound Claims
In Chapter six of the textbook, the topic of a compound claim is, as explained by Epstein, "one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim". (113) So it simply has to deal with two propositions, one way or another, but still considered has one claim with the "or" serving as the connection of the argument or claim; it is one claim, but made of two claims within it. There are different kinds of compound claims that are learned in this chapter, for instance, false dilemmas. Alternatives are the claims where a connection by an "or" claim are involved; there are the parts of it. (114) "Or" claims have the possibility and aid in determining whether or not an argument is valid or weak by looking at the way the "or" claim plays a role in the sentence itself.
False Dilemmas
In the textbook, it also mentions false dilemmas. It deals with persuading the other person by giving them a reasonable conclusion for the problem, juxtaposed to another possibly option and/or conclusion that's extremely outrageous, silly, and seemingly implausible. The bad claims can come from not listing all the possibilities that are left out from the "or" claim, even if leaving out possibilities can be considered a way of making a valid argument. The claims attached to the "or" are called alternatives. To be precise, a false dilemma is "a bad use of excluding possibilities where the "or" claim is false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious "or" claim itself is called a "false dilemma"". (118) So in order to avoid dilemmas like this, we have to realize and think about possibilities that can occur when someone else hears or reads the claim.
Conditionals and their Contradictories
The conditionals and their contradictories deal with the "if and then" ideal. The claim isn't a guaranteed outcome of the proposed "then", but rather becomes a conditional claim because it has to do with doing your part of the deal, so to speak. In other words, there is a Part A and Part B to the idea, in that if you are successful in completing and succeeding in Part A, there is a better likeliness and guarantee that, based off on what claim tells you, will be yours. However, if you do poorly, then there is no reason for the person proposing this claim to give you anything as said before in Part B. Sometimes, the claim can be told in a reversed order or can leave out the words "if" or "then", but still be very clear in explaining the "if and then" claim without using the actual words. The definition of a conditional is essentially this, and the fact that it can re-told in the sense of "if A, then B" (121)--A becoming its antecedent, and B the consequent. The contradictory is similar, but is told as "If A, then B, has contradictory A but not B." (121) "But that does not mean the contradictory of a conditional is not another conditional," (122) like using the words "even if". An example is given to say that I need to get to post office, so I need to leave by two, but a friend of mine comes over and exclaims that I can just put it in the drop box outside of our building instead. So there's a definite A then B, but then there becomes another B, so to speak.
In Chapter six of the textbook, the topic of a compound claim is, as explained by Epstein, "one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim". (113) So it simply has to deal with two propositions, one way or another, but still considered has one claim with the "or" serving as the connection of the argument or claim; it is one claim, but made of two claims within it. There are different kinds of compound claims that are learned in this chapter, for instance, false dilemmas. Alternatives are the claims where a connection by an "or" claim are involved; there are the parts of it. (114) "Or" claims have the possibility and aid in determining whether or not an argument is valid or weak by looking at the way the "or" claim plays a role in the sentence itself.
False Dilemmas
In the textbook, it also mentions false dilemmas. It deals with persuading the other person by giving them a reasonable conclusion for the problem, juxtaposed to another possibly option and/or conclusion that's extremely outrageous, silly, and seemingly implausible. The bad claims can come from not listing all the possibilities that are left out from the "or" claim, even if leaving out possibilities can be considered a way of making a valid argument. The claims attached to the "or" are called alternatives. To be precise, a false dilemma is "a bad use of excluding possibilities where the "or" claim is false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious "or" claim itself is called a "false dilemma"". (118) So in order to avoid dilemmas like this, we have to realize and think about possibilities that can occur when someone else hears or reads the claim.
Conditionals and their Contradictories
The conditionals and their contradictories deal with the "if and then" ideal. The claim isn't a guaranteed outcome of the proposed "then", but rather becomes a conditional claim because it has to do with doing your part of the deal, so to speak. In other words, there is a Part A and Part B to the idea, in that if you are successful in completing and succeeding in Part A, there is a better likeliness and guarantee that, based off on what claim tells you, will be yours. However, if you do poorly, then there is no reason for the person proposing this claim to give you anything as said before in Part B. Sometimes, the claim can be told in a reversed order or can leave out the words "if" or "then", but still be very clear in explaining the "if and then" claim without using the actual words. The definition of a conditional is essentially this, and the fact that it can re-told in the sense of "if A, then B" (121)--A becoming its antecedent, and B the consequent. The contradictory is similar, but is told as "If A, then B, has contradictory A but not B." (121) "But that does not mean the contradictory of a conditional is not another conditional," (122) like using the words "even if". An example is given to say that I need to get to post office, so I need to leave by two, but a friend of mine comes over and exclaims that I can just put it in the drop box outside of our building instead. So there's a definite A then B, but then there becomes another B, so to speak.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Discussion Question Number Three: Part Four
Bad Appeals to Authority
"It's usually a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it." (97)
Chapter 5 discusses the interesting ideals and misinterpretation of believing what someone says merely because they sound like they know what they are talking about. I've known some people, and admittedly have caught myself doing this (speaking about a certain topic as if I've an expert on it), and it's really just unfortunate because there has been some times where I may know a simple fact or two, and act as if I am the go-to person for that thing, simply so I can have that title---which is ridiculous. According to the text, people have the tendency to treat their friends as these bad appeals to authority more commonly than others because of the close friendship. We're either truly believe what they say to be true, or do not want to hurt their feelings because we are aware of this bad authority and pretend as if they are giving truthful thoughts, arguments, or claims.
There is also the mentioning of the comparison of the bad perpetuated idea and overused argument of the if-everyone-is-doing-it-you-should-do-it-too attitude or persona that some people or other friends tend to use to convince or influence someone to do something they have hesitance in doing int he first place as a bad appeal to authority. However, this air of common belief or alleged assumption can come in handy in some occasions. For instance, Epstein provides the common belief of "Harry's" observation of seeing others driving on the other side of the road (the left side) when in Japan, and because of that, he should do it as well.
"It's usually a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it." (97)
Chapter 5 discusses the interesting ideals and misinterpretation of believing what someone says merely because they sound like they know what they are talking about. I've known some people, and admittedly have caught myself doing this (speaking about a certain topic as if I've an expert on it), and it's really just unfortunate because there has been some times where I may know a simple fact or two, and act as if I am the go-to person for that thing, simply so I can have that title---which is ridiculous. According to the text, people have the tendency to treat their friends as these bad appeals to authority more commonly than others because of the close friendship. We're either truly believe what they say to be true, or do not want to hurt their feelings because we are aware of this bad authority and pretend as if they are giving truthful thoughts, arguments, or claims.
There is also the mentioning of the comparison of the bad perpetuated idea and overused argument of the if-everyone-is-doing-it-you-should-do-it-too attitude or persona that some people or other friends tend to use to convince or influence someone to do something they have hesitance in doing int he first place as a bad appeal to authority. However, this air of common belief or alleged assumption can come in handy in some occasions. For instance, Epstein provides the common belief of "Harry's" observation of seeing others driving on the other side of the road (the left side) when in Japan, and because of that, he should do it as well.
Discussion Question Number Two: Part Four
Advertisements
Evaluating premises involves deciding whether or not the person observing the advertisement will decide to believe the claim in means of either:
1. accept the claim as true
2. reject the claim as false.
or to
3. suspend judgment.
Advertisements like of Coca-Cola's Happiness Truck, created by Definition 6, show a clever side to promoting products, where this Happiness Truck drives around stopping in whatever location while presenting itself to act like a vending machine. By illustrating the campaign of the Coca-Cola's Happiness Truck: Where Will Happiness Strike Next?, the producer is appealing to the emotions of the consumer. The license plate WWHSN (the campaign's motto as an acronym) demonstrates the idea further in creating a hopeful sense of the possibility that this truck might stop by where the reader or watcher lives and he/she will see that license plate and immediately remember this ad. It becomes dependent on personal experience and other sources for the result in the watcher's reaction. It's certain that we can deem this ad as valid because it does what its supposed to, which is make a person happy, therefore, there is a link between the statement and the result. Whenever these people think of Coca-Cola, they will think of this experience and the emotions they were encountering with, at the time. It is the comparison of what you felt juxtaposed with the product that shows the wit of the company and essentially playful side. Even though this is ultimately meant to sell products, it does give a sense of happiness (as advertised) for just a few minutes for those who had the opportunity to be involved, as well as those witnessing it on their computers or televisions.
According to Epstein, some advertisements conclude messages that sometimes may be unstated. One always wants to re-read or look through the advertisement once again to see if what is being told is earnest, or in whatever way, shape, or form, strong enough to be considered a reasonable argument--this ad has a bit of that in it Although this advertisement does directly promote the product upfront by dispensing cans of Coca-Cola bottles and other various objects to help gain support for their likeness of drinking Coca-Cola, this advertisement leaves the watcher wanting more in order to gain more from the experience and learn its message. It is not like traditional ads where they try to gain the audience's attention by offering special deals to the customer. By avoiding this, they create an imaginative way to maintain the customer's interest by pulling on their emotions. We are able to relate to this happiness, as well as, can deem it trustworthy that this commercial tells the truth in what it says through the surrounding reactions of those able to experience this happy contraption; "we accept a claim in a media outlet that's usually reliable". (89) This ad can fall under any of the three choices listed above because it does depend on how the consumer will view it. It is inevitable to enjoy this commercial solely because of its moral attributes, in my opinion. But just because I accept it for how it's shown---by offering happiness through a button---doesn't make it fact, it is what you make out of it, and whether you trust this ad to deliver truth and correctly inform.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Discussion Question Number One: Part Four
Principle of Rational Discussion
The Principle of Rational Discussion deals with identifying, the malformation within a claim under precise ideals, as indicated and taken from Epstein's Chapter 4, which is as follows:
"We assume that the other person who is discussing with us or whose arguments we are reading:
1. Knows about the subject under discussion.
2. Is able and willing to reason well.
3. Is not lying" (60)
This chapter also displays the importance of being able to differentiate between good and bad arguments, through various terms, possible situations, and examples to help the reader. The Principle of Rational Discussion declares that by choosing to go along other's decision to ignore this concept is to essentially make way for being less likely able in convincing others, unable to distinguish what one should believe, and the denial of the essentials of democracy. The chapter reintroduces the idea of strong and valid arguments, and the possibility of plausibility occurring in the premise than in the conclusion, and so forth. There are some situations where placing this principle cannot happen because of the certain situation in place may prevent that from happening. For instance, Epstein places a person who has freshly fallen in love or become upset to fall under that exemption because of their emotions, at the moment, tend to be more, for the lack of a better word, sensitive.
Example: Laptops are so convenient; they allow for easy transportation. They're also much lighter than a desktop. Buying a desktop is essentially wasting space and a loss of good money.
Analysis The argument above holds validity, however although it may be true in the things its states, there are flaws in the argument itself that can differ where it matters, which is being a strong argument overall, and having good reason to make other's believe your claim. An argument isn't simply wonderful by stating information that is evident and well-known. With this statement, the writer simply infers the idea that anything that provides easy transportation, is light-weight, and convenient is automatically good, with no question--just because it may be easy doesn't mean it's always a great thing. There are links missing; the writer simply states reason after another with no further reasoning to the previous sentiment. This argument is also subjective because they are not claiming something that is, but how they think it should be. They need to take into account that not everyone will agree with what they have to say, because they are plenty of people who feel a desktop has much more of worth to them than a laptop ever could, as well as, a person who prefers to stray away from either until absolutely necessary and simply stay with a pen or pencil and a piece of paper.
The Principle of Rational Discussion deals with identifying, the malformation within a claim under precise ideals, as indicated and taken from Epstein's Chapter 4, which is as follows:
"We assume that the other person who is discussing with us or whose arguments we are reading:
1. Knows about the subject under discussion.
2. Is able and willing to reason well.
3. Is not lying" (60)
This chapter also displays the importance of being able to differentiate between good and bad arguments, through various terms, possible situations, and examples to help the reader. The Principle of Rational Discussion declares that by choosing to go along other's decision to ignore this concept is to essentially make way for being less likely able in convincing others, unable to distinguish what one should believe, and the denial of the essentials of democracy. The chapter reintroduces the idea of strong and valid arguments, and the possibility of plausibility occurring in the premise than in the conclusion, and so forth. There are some situations where placing this principle cannot happen because of the certain situation in place may prevent that from happening. For instance, Epstein places a person who has freshly fallen in love or become upset to fall under that exemption because of their emotions, at the moment, tend to be more, for the lack of a better word, sensitive.
The Guide to Repairing Arguments
"We can add something to the claim (a premise or conclusion) if and only if:
1. The argument becomes stronger or valid.
2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion." (62)
Example: Laptops are so convenient; they allow for easy transportation. They're also much lighter than a desktop. Buying a desktop is essentially wasting space and a loss of good money.
Analysis The argument above holds validity, however although it may be true in the things its states, there are flaws in the argument itself that can differ where it matters, which is being a strong argument overall, and having good reason to make other's believe your claim. An argument isn't simply wonderful by stating information that is evident and well-known. With this statement, the writer simply infers the idea that anything that provides easy transportation, is light-weight, and convenient is automatically good, with no question--just because it may be easy doesn't mean it's always a great thing. There are links missing; the writer simply states reason after another with no further reasoning to the previous sentiment. This argument is also subjective because they are not claiming something that is, but how they think it should be. They need to take into account that not everyone will agree with what they have to say, because they are plenty of people who feel a desktop has much more of worth to them than a laptop ever could, as well as, a person who prefers to stray away from either until absolutely necessary and simply stay with a pen or pencil and a piece of paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)