Mission: Critical

What I enjoyed most about the Mission Critical article was that it used an everyday scenario as an counter example of inductive reasoning. Unfortunately, the further I read in to the article, the more confused and less sure about this topic I became. One thing I can say that helped me out a little bit was the fact that I read over it again and again until it finally clicked. I feel like I can almost compare this to the Domino Effect: one thing causes another thing to happen, that causes another thing to happen and so on. However, the only exception is that the inductive reasoning had to be based on an observation or experience. The website provides two rules of thumb in dealing with causation that can be used as a guide to help analyze and evaluate causal arguments. The rules are listed below:
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 its purported "effect."

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/induc/causal.html

Cause and Effect

On the Cause and Effect website, the most helpful part for me was the exercises that used the example about the people getting sick at the company picnic. With my luck, I was able to get the first two out of three answers correct, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, I couldn’t answer the last question correctly. It took me all of four tries to get the correct answer which slightly hindered me from understanding what the textbook style definition of Cause and Effect really was. The question was:
Five people became sick at the company picnic. Which of the following might be considered the most significant factor in determining the likelihood that the potato salad they all ate was the cause of their illness?
A. At least one other person ate the same potato salad and did not get sick.
B. The potato salad was supposed to be stored in the refrigerator, but it was left out the night before the picnic.
C. They ate varying amounts of potato salad.
D. They got sick right after eating the potato salad, but the incubation period for the illness was three days.
The correct answer was ‘D’, but I still don’t understand why this is. Hopefully I will get a better understanding before finals. :)

Uncontrolled Experiment: Cause-to-Effect

An interesting concept from Chapter 15 of the text, was the uncontrolled experiment: Cause-to-effect. In this experiment, the possible cause is smoking; whereas the effect is lung cancer. During this study, researchers gathered two groups of people. One of the groups contained smokers, and the other contained people that claimed they never smoked. As this group was followed for over fifteen years, other possible factors of lung cancer were dismissed; and it was discovered that smoking was the common cause of lung cancers in the group that contained the smokers. This section later goes on to explain that since this experiment is uncontrolled, there can be many causes to the effect of lung cancer. It also goes to show that the process of eliminating those extra causes could be tedious. I enjoyed this section the most because it is realistic in showing that not all effects have just one cause.

The Difficult Concept

The concept that was most difficult for me to understand was Inductive Reasoning. I didn’t really understand it until I read it over a few times and tried to create some real life examples. I couldn’t find the definition nor did understand any difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. I came to the conclusion that the both have similar traits in making decisions using a levelheaded judgment. Reasoning is a part of our lives and we have to use it all the time. If we want to get someone to do something for us, we would have to reason with the person or people that we need. In addition to reasoning with that person, our reasoning would have to be rational to make the communication a lot smoother and the cooperation less difficult. I guess it would take some personal experience in order for me to fully understand this reasoning.

Evaluating Analogies

Since I have learned the different types of reasoning’s, a concept that I found interesting was reasoning by analogy. As explained in Epstien’s text, Chapter 12 was about analogies and how we can attempt to analyze and evaluate them. There are questions provided by the text, to use as a guide when we examine an analogy. This is an essential part in our critical thinking course, ensuring that we are on the right path and understanding reasonings. Listed below are the questions in the guide of evaluating analogies.

-Is this an argument? What is the conclusion?
-What is the comparison?
-What are the premises? (one or both sides of the comparison)
-What are the similarities?
-Can we state the similarities as premises and find a general principle that covers the two sides?
-Does the general principle really apply to both sides? Do the differences matter?
-Is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?

Reasonings

There are many types of reasoning covered in this course such as, Sign Reasoning, Causal Reasoning, Reasoning by Example, Reasoning by Criteria, Inductive and Deductive Reasonings.

Sign Reasoning
Sign Reasoning declares that two or more things are so similar that the inclusion or exclusion of one subject indicates the presence or absence of another. For instance, “It smells good in here; they must have tidied up.”

Causal Reasoning
Causal reasoning is when there’s a good reason to believe that one event happened because of the occurrence of another. A perfect example would be when I was relaxing my hair. I left the relaxer in for too long, and it broke some of my hair off.

Reasoning by Example
Reasoning by Example is when you use demonstratives or other forms of examples in an argument. As an up and coming hairstylist, my desire is to have my own shop. I need to have a multitude of designs in my portfolio and in order for me to have that; I need to practice on human and mannequin heads to build my clientele. My cousin did that for 2 years and she already owns her own salon.

Reasoning by Criteria
This reasoning defines criteria in which the results of a decision will be judged, then find the best decision, when given these constraints. Like, I would like to wear something fairly loose and comfortable for the party tonight. A blazer and leggings would suffice.

Inductive Reasoning
Inductive Reasoning is a form of inference, creating specific or general propositions about objects or types based on previous observations. For example, books are read from left to right. Therefore, the story will read from left to right.

Deductive Reasoning
This reasoning develops deductive arguments in which the conclusion follows from the premises. For example, my bird Shiloh is a parrot. Parrots sing a lot. Consequently, Shiloh sings.

You Scratch My Back, I'll Scratch Yours

While reading this chapter, I have come across some appeals that stood out to me. I've noticed when I am angry or when I really need someone to do something for me because I'm being lazy, I tend to call in all debts so I can get it done. In doing this I've lost friends and even some respect from my peers. I remember a time when my friends wanted to go to a party downtown and they were planning on getting wasted. I had just put gas in my car and I wasn't planning on making any runs until the weekend. Being the good friend that I am, when they asked me to DD (designated driver) for them, I gladly accepted. Unfortunately, when the tables were turned and I needed a DD, I couldn't even get them to answer their phones. The next day they tried to start a conversation with me, which definitely didn't go any further than an evil glare.

Appeal to Pity

In Chapter 10 of the Epstein text, an Appeal to Emotion is described as "a premise that says...you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way."(Epstein, p. 191) In most instances, appeals to emotion can be infused with advertisements that have a tendency to draw tears to our eyes or make us inquisitive and pick up the phone. Perfect examples of an appeal to emotion would be the "Feed the Children" and ASPCA commercials (the one with "In the Eyes of an Angel" soundtrack). Watching those commercials usually brings a tendernes amongst our hearts and we begin to feel bad for the suffering children and abused animals; thus, inclining us to make a donation to the organization and specifically making this an appeal to pity. This appeal really stands out to me because I feel like these commercials are always coming on at the wrong times and during the wrong shows. Just recently, I was watching my favorite funny movie Rush Hour on FX and during the commercial break the ASPCA commercial came on with that somber song and it messed up my whole mood. I didn't even finish popping my popcorn or finish the movie.

Appeals to Fear Objective #3

In reading the text, I learned that arguments that appeal to fear can be considered good or bad depending on how it is written and read. In Chapter 10 of the Epstein text, appeals to emotion are discussed; one of which is an appeal to fear. An appeal to fear, according to the text, is way some advertisements are directed in order to sell a product. When bad, it is described as the replacement of a reasonable concern for the rest and injects our minds with other options. On the other hand, the text gives an example emphasizing a good appeal to emotion. There’s no real easy way to make a positive out of fear, but it’s possible. For example:

Your daughter is playing in the park. You look down at your phone for two seconds and WHAM! You hear her screaming to the top of her lungs in agony. You see a scrape from her wrist to her elbow. What do you do?

Vague Generalities

A topic at stood out to me in this week's reading, is when Epstein mentions vague generalities in Chapter 8. Vague generalities occur when we make claims without making exact specifications. Epstein believes that these combinations of words or claims are too vague to form a valid argument, and can be too ambiguous to use in a claim. Some words that can make a claim vague include words like: all, almost, many, most, a lot of, some, a few, and very few.

Example:
Most women like men with a lot of money.
Jen meets James. James is a doctor.
So James has a lot of money and Jen likes him.

The premise gives us good reason to make the claim. The problem is that the conclusion is using the word "a lot" which can have several definitions. A lot could mean $5 million or a lot could mean $5. We also don’t know that Jen likes James because of his financial success, she could like him because he is handsome and has a good personality.

General Claims and Their Contradictions

In chapter 8 of the Epstein text, the topic being discussed was general claims and their contradictories. A contradiction is defined as a “claim that has the opposite truth-value” (Epstein, p. 161). Buzz words to identify claims with contradictions are words like “all” and “some”, which are present in everyday conversation. These words and others alike, make invalid and bad arguments sound plausible by using ambiguous wording. Other words like “no” and “only”, which are also buzz words, are the easiest words to make claims contradict themselves. For example:
Only black women have several children by many different men.
I am a black woman.
So I must have a tribe of children by a football team of men.
This is clearly not the case and using the word “only” coincides with the word “all” by assuming that because I am a black woman that I fall into that category as well.

There's No 'I' in TEAM

The first group assignment, in my opinion, was extremely useful. It gave me the opportunity to utilize the course material in a real-life setting. The course material I am reffering to is Chapter 4 in the Group Communications text about Communication in Organizations. Working with my group mates was, and still is awesome and I cannot stress that enough. The text defines organizational communication as “the exchange of messages between organizational members or among members of different organizations.” If it weren’t for those exchanges, we wouldn’t have completed that assignment. I believe good communication and patience among group members is very important because these elements lead to success. Without these, failure is eminent and frustration is brewing. I didn’t know it, but I was reciprocating what I had learned not only for the sake of myself, but for my group members as well so that I am not labeled as the nuisance of the group.

This Week's Interests...

After reading Chapters 6 and 7 of Epstein’s text, I subconsciously began to implement some of the ways to refute and rebut arguments. The one I surprising used to today was ridicule. I know it’s wrong, I was wrong for saying it and the book definitely agrees. My friends and I were in the airport waiting for an arriving family when we saw a rather large man wearing a Hawaiian shirt, off board a flight. My friend leaned over and said to me, “His trip must have been expensive. Look at all that luggage he has.” Out of word-vomit I say, “And I’m sure he paid extra for that seat, too!” The minute I said it, I should my head and thought to myself, “ridicule”. It’s amazing how often we ridicule others and how seldom we ever catch ourselves doing it. It’s just one of those things that get swept under the rug.

Counterarguments

Chapter 7 covers counterarguments. A counterargument can also be called a rebuttal and is often used in conversations and formal arguments. In the courtroom, these counterarguments are used all the time. But in our everyday lives, we use counterarguments to “predict” the outcome of a particular situation. Since it is more common to argue with someone other than ourselves we can refute an argument in two ways; indirectly and directly. The book lists multiple ways to refute an argument; however I believe the best way is to refute indirectly by reducing to the absurd. The book describes this approach as “showing 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, p. 150) In previous chapters, in order for an argument to be good, its premises must be plausible. In this case, it fails which makes any argument constructed in this matter is bad. For example, some parents believe abortions are bad, because they fear their teens will begin to use them as a contraceptive. On the other hand, parents feel that abortions will promote the promiscuity of their daughter. Some can argue for the first, but would be unsure about the second, because it can be dubious for reason of opinion.

Contradictions and Compounds

In chapter 6 of the Epstein text, the subject explained compound claims and ‘OR’ claims. The text defines a compound claim as a claim made up of other claims that have to be analyzed as one sole claim. An example of a compound claim would be my mother returning from Iraq today and her telling me, “Pie, my plane will land at OAK or SFO today.” How she doesn’t know where her plane will land, is beyond me, but this explains a compound claim because of the phrase OR. Had she used ‘and’ instead, there would be multiple claims, thus contradicting the definition of compound claims.

In lieu of contradiction, an addition point the text mentioned was contradictory claims. A contradictory claim is a claim that has an opposing value of truth in all possible circumstances (Epstein, p. 114). Using the above example, if my mother were to use ‘and’, her claim would be, “Pie, my plane will land in OAK and SFO.”, which is physically impossible.

Common Mistakes in Evaluating Premises

In reading the last section in chapter 5 of the text, I became interested in the bad appeals to authority and common beliefs. I realized that having read the chapter prior, discussing Content Fallacies, my knowledge of the conjunction between bad appeals to common beliefs and authorities has accelerated. I believe these two fallacies go hand in hand because they are always present in advertisements on television and the internet. An example of this accord can be seen in my previous posts, the one about Ronnie and HydroxyCut. If you notice, they use a celebrity personality to tell potentially overweight and desperate consumers that all they have to do is take those pills and get results like his. The mistake is made when the consumer accepts this claim to be true just because of the catch phrase, “try it and be like the other millions of people who lost XX lbs.” Another issue is the segment where the “doctor” speaks. We don’t know for sure if he is a real doctor; he may be one really great actor that can play a good doctor, but there is clearly a motive to mislead consumers which is why this segment of the commercial is a bad appeal to authority.

Advertisments Online

I have a serious online shopping addiction. My favorite online websites are Amazon.com and Overstock (o.co).  With sites like these, particularly Amazon, you can get awesome deals like free shipping, free 2-day shipping and much more. When I get my email notifications and SMS notifications, I get really upset because they always come when I don’t have enough spending money.  Amazon also gives great deals to college students with a program called Amazon Prime, which allows college students to receive free 2-day shipping, $3.99 one-day shipping and instant videos. In the section B of the text, personal experience is a criterion for accepting or rejecting claims, and in this case, this source is reliable because I have been a faithful shopper for the last 3 years.  All of my electronics and somewhat expensive items have been purchased through this site and I have never had a problem. Their customer support team is amazing and is quick to respond when you need help with something. According to the Epstein, we can see that this claim has no reason to mislead, usually reliable and the original source is not only named, but PLASTERED on every page of its site.

Click Here to Learn More About AmazonPrime!!

"If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It!"

This week’s discussion was in reference to the Principle of Rational Discussion and Repairing Arguments. An example of an argument that needs to be repaired can be compared to the ever-so controversial topic of Marijuana and its medicinal use. For instance:

Argument: “I smoke weed because I can’t sleep.”
Analysis: With just this statement alone, a reader will not have much reason to believe the premise nor the conclusion without more information. Smoking weed allows me to sleep and stay asleep throughout the night, could be an added premise and adding more support to the original argument.

I took the time to actually formulate the full argument and this is what I came up with:

“Given that certain strains of marijuana can be sedative, my use of these strains in fair doses will allow me to maintain a continuous and uninterrupted sleeping pattern, thus my reasoning for using medicinal marijuana.”

Communication in Organizations

In Chapter 4 of the Group Communications text, the roles in an organization are analyzed and described in detail. This topic, for me, brings back memories of my days as an officer in my Police Explorer back in high school. Even though I did a darn good job as the Chairman of Social Communications, reading this section made me realize that I knew exactly what I was doing. In any organization, there is a pecking order, which is a set of people that work in a certain order, depending on rank. The only way an organization can be triumphant, is if the communication between the lower and superior ranks and there is a mutual understanding of the information transpired. For example, in my years as a Police Explorer, I had a tendency to always inquire about promotions and things, but in order for me to get the answer that I wanted (or any answer for that matter); I had to go through the chain of command. This process I always hated, because I had to wait for FOREVER to get the answer, and when the answer finally came, it was COMPLETELY different from what the Advisor (head-honcho) originally said. This is why it is so important for there to be good communication between the two branches because without it, an organization can self-destruct.

Structure of Arguments

This topic, I must say was by far the most difficult topic to understand for me. Please bear with me, if I am travelling down a different path. It took me a while to figure out what part went where, but I can definitely see that this exercise helped me break down arguments and pick out key claims, when I finally understood it.
For the exercises on the Structure of Arguments, I chose to analyze #3.
“Las Vegas has too many people. (1) There’s not enough water in the desert to support more than a million people. (2) And the infrastructure of the city can’t handle more than a million (3): The streets are overcrowded (4), and traffic is always congested (5); the schools are overcrowded (6), and new ones can’t be built fast enough (7). We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county. (8)”
Argument: yes
Conclusion: We should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
Additional Premises Needed? a) If the city’s infrastructure can’t support 1 million people, then there isn’t enough water to support 1 million people. b) Vegas streets are overcrowded and traffic is always congested, schools are overcrowded and new ones aren’t readily available. Therefore Vegas has too many people and we should stop migration to the city by tough zoning laws in the city and county.
Identify any subarguments: 2, 4, 5, and 6 are all independent claims that support 1. Then 1 supports 8.

Content Fallacies

On page 201 of the text, Content Fallacies are the topic. I chose to describe the fallacy “Bad appeal to common belief (or practice)”. In my opinion an argument that is a bad appeal to common belief is one that falsely justifies a claim by generalizing the amount of it participants (if it worked for them, it can work for you). An example of this fallacy would be the Hydroxy Cut commercials, especially the newer one with Ronnie from ‘Jersey Shore’. In this commercial he says that by taking Hydroxy Cut he lost a tremendous amount of weight and got the sculpted body he always wanted. He finishes by adding, “if you want results like these you need to pick up your bottle of Hydroxy Cut today!” This argument can be considered a bad appeal to common belief because ironically, Ronnie is a TV personality and guys who aren’t so attractive would love to duplicate his physique. The viewers will believe since Ronnie obtained the body he has from Hydroxy Cut, them taking Hydroxy Cut will produce the same result.

What Interested Me in Chapter 3...

The main thing that interested me about this chapter is how an argument can be so complex and dense. Even in my POLS 20 Controversial Legal Issues course, I never had to dismantle any argument so deeply. The farthest I have gotten was vagueness and ambiguity.
When it came to learning that a premise must follow a conclusion, I started to get confused, but the more examples I read about it I started to understand. The book says that a conclusion must follow from the premise; this is another confusing way to say that the premise as well as the conclusion must be true, likely, or unlikely in order for the argument to be valid, strong or otherwise. I honestly feel that there should be a cliff notes version of this book, because there are some unintended contradictions in this text, differentiating valid from strong arguments which is really confusing.

Tests for a Good Argument

An argument is expressed as an attempt to assure someone that a certain claim is true. In order to classify an argument as "good", it must first pass three tests. The first two tests are to determine whether the premises are plausible, and are more plausible than the conclusion. A claim can only be plausible of there is reason to believe that is true; which leads to the latter test, determining whether the argument is valid or strong. An important note that the book tells us to remember, is that every good argument is valid however; arguments that are invalid can be classified from strong to weak, exposing the possibility of the likelihood or unlikelihood of the conclusion being false and the premises true at the same time.
For example:
Jen left her phone at her boyfriend Blue’s house. Blue went through Jen’s phone and found messages between her another man.
Messages:
Jen: Hey Max!
Max: Hey Jen, how r u?
J: Fine, u?
M: Same, wats ur favorite movie?
J: Crash, u?
M: Toy Story, hahahahaha
J: I like that movie 2, but not my fave.
M: Oh, ok
J: :)
Blue’s Argument (to Jen): I saw text messages between you and Max. You two were flirting about movies. So you are cheating.
The premises in Blue’s argument give us reason to believe there was indeed a conversation between Jen and Max and are also more plausible than the conclusion because the physical evidence makes his source reliable, thus passing the first two tests. The only problem is that his conclusion of Jen cheating is false, which doesn’t make the argument valid, just weak because the possibility of Jen cheating in those few messages is not so unlikely. The two could have been planning a movie date and begin their affair. “Imagine the possibilities”.

Strong vs. Valid Arguments

In chapter 3's reading, it was explained that valid arguments are only valid if the statement is presumed true as well as its conclusion. On the other hand, a strong argument is such that there is a reason to believe there is some truth to its premise, but falseness in its conclusion.
An example of a strong argument is:
All fruits have seeds.
So a cucumber is a fruit.
This is an example of a strong argument because the statement provided is a plausible claim; however, there is a possibility that this conclusion can be false because realistically not all fruits have seeds like bananas. An example of a valid argument is:
The government is facing a horrible budget crisis.
So they have to close schools and increase tuition fees to suffice.
The premise in this scenario is considered a plausible claim; the conclusion “follows from the premise”, as well as the conclusion being true. This deems this argument good and valid because it passes the 3 tests needed for a good argument.

Vague vs. Ambiguous

The term vague is frequently described as a sentence or phrase that is not thoroughly explained and often misunderstood. Earlier this semester, my laptop charger shorted out and I needed to replace it. I asked my room mate where I could find the nearest Best Buy. She told me, "There's one right off the freeway." I didn't know where she was directing me because there are several free ways like I-680, US-101 and I-280. Her di rections would be deemed vague because there is not just one Best Buy off of one freeway. An example of ambiguity is when my boss told me that he would "give me a ring tomorrow". I was sort of caught off guard because I didn't know what he meant by "a ring". I wasn't sure if he was refering to a physical ring or a phone call. Ambiguous language is language used during advertisements and sales pitches to get consumers to BUY! BUY! BUY! These phrases have a tendency to have open-ended meanings and can be interpreted in several ways.

Discussion #1

A subjective claim can be either true or false because it is not based on fact, but mainly based on personal. opinion; it can not be proven true or false in any way.Though an objective claim is quite similar to a subjective claim, an objective claim can be proven false or true by all means. Therefore an objective claim is not based on one’s own opinion but if that opinion could be proven or dis proven.
For example, my best friend Kare and I both own Toyotas; I own a '98 Camry and she, an '04 Corolla. I would always be extremely jealous when she would get gas and only use twenty-five dollars to put her gas tank on'F' as opposed to my fifty-two. I never understood why I'd always paid more than her. I went to the Toyota dealer for a routine oil change and come to find out, my engine is a whole lot bigger than Kare's which explained why my fill-up was so expensive. This costly experience is an example of an objective claim because the price of the fill-up was based on the size of the car's engine; a fact.
In contrast, an example of a subjective claim is when a former friend of mine decided to stay with the boy she is dating, and determined that he is the perfect guy for her, even though he has told her on several occasions that he is no longer interested in her. I am no expert on love, but I'm sure when someone tells they are no longer interested, they typically are no longer interested. I think he is a terrible human, but who am I to judge? Him being a terrible human is just an opinion of mine and cannot be proven as much as I wish it could.

About Me...

Hello Class,

My name is Champagne Ellison. I am a Junior here at San Jose State, and a Forensic Biology major. I am taking COMM 41 to satisfy my Area: A3 GE courses and excited to learn more about decision making. I have a major problem with decisions, especially when it everytime comes to my nails! My nail lady always tells me to make a decision about my design before she starts her work, because she has other clients waiting and doesn't want me to "mess up the rotation". So, I figured this class will "kill two birds with one stone"; I can learn how to critically think in certain situations, and spend less time in the nail shop. I have taken general Communication courses like Public Speaking (COMM 20) and Public Address (MAS 74), but I had only heard COMM 41 and that it would be an essential part of my college career. My interests include activities like beading, socializing, and learning. I also like watching movies and making random YouTube videos. I look forward to taking this class and wish everyone good luck in the semester!