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?