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.”