Week 7 - 3 of 3

For chapter 12, I found that reasoning by analogy was the most useful and interesting thing in this chapter. Reasoning by Analogy is a comparison when it is part of an argument: On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same. This definition is from Epstein. An example of this would be: "Jessica took the hottest guy to the school prom. Yet she is not the most popular. Lily, who is, was very jealous and wanted to do something about it. So at the prom, Lily decided to pull a prank on Jessica. When Jessica walked in Lily threw punch all over Jessica's dress. Jessica does not give in. So Jessica played it off and she came back with a pair of scissors and decided to cut holes into Lily dress." This example shows that Jessica's mentality is one of "an eye for an eye". Though she may get back at Lily this will get these two nowhere. Instead they will just become enemies, living life just to make the others a living hell. And it all started because of jealousy. That is usually why things like these happen.

Week 7 - 2 of 3

I have chosen to do objective #6. An example of appeal to spite that I have found is in an ad for a governor campaign. It is a recent ad aimed against Jerry Brown by Meg Whitman. Here are two links to youtube clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qXKZf30Vio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NaRGWsbkKs

These to clips show that Meg Whitman believes that Jerry Brown will be a bad governor because of his previous mishaps. When he was governor, secretary of state, and even mayor, according to her, he failed. Not only did he fail but he also admitted to not having a plan when he was governor the first time around. Jerry Brown had put out one or two ads against Meg Whitman, so now she has done the same thing. Like Epstein states that some people believe "two wrongs make a right", which they do not in her case. Instead of helping her, Whitman's ads have been taking a wrong turn for her campaign. They make her look less credible and mature. I think that her ads are bad ways of arguing against her opponent.

Week 7 - 1 of 3

Chapter 10 discusses a type of reasoning, that is, appeals to emotion. An appeal to emotion according to Epstein, is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way. There are three different kinds of appeals to emotion: appeal to pity, appeal to fear, and appeal to spite. Appeal to pity is a method of reasoning where a person uses usually sad things to get another person to do something. For example: Jack and Jill just saw a commercial about women and children being abused. The ad was created by an organization who is helping victims of abused relationships. They want the public's support. Jill looks at Jack and says, "We have to donate something, they need our help. It isn't right what is happening to those women and children. We should do something about it." Appeal to fear is a method used to manipulate people. An example of this would be: "Vote for Jackson because he will keep you safe. If you don't you will die." Appeal to spite is a method that usually does not use moral because it seeks revenge. An example of this appeal would be: If your boyfriend cheated on you, you cheat on him. The appeal that I find most interesting out of the three is the appeal to spite. Though I am guilty to all three, I have recently dealt with spite. Sometimes in difficult situations I let my emotions get the best of me instead of thinking rationally. The example of cheating has happened to my friend and he is still with the "love of his life". Revenge and spite are very strong words as well as actions that are not the best choices in life.

Week 6 - 3 of 3

Another thing that I found useful and interesting in this week's readings was the section about "Categorical Claims". A categorical claim as stated in Epstein is one that can be rewritten as an equivalent claim that has one of the following standard forms: All S are P; Some S is P; No S is P; Some S is not P. An everyday example of each of these would be: All cellphones are wireless; No paper is a pencil; Some gymnasts are divers; Some cabinets are not brown. Though each of these are true, we don't usually reason in such ways everyday. To rewrite as categorical all you need to add is the word "thing", for instance: No paper is a pencil = No paper is a thing that is a pencil; or, Some cabinets are not brown = Some cabinet is a thing that is not brown, and so on. Categorical claims are fairly easy in the beginning but get a bit more complicated when studying further into them.

Week 6 - 2 of 3

I decided to due my second blog on Truth Tables. I am going to focus on "The Classical Abstraction". According to Epstein, the classical abstraction focuses on whether the claim is true or false, and how it is compounded from other claims. When looking at an "and" argument the claim is known as a conjunction. A conjunction is only true if both parts of it are true. For example: Bananas are yellow and oranges are orange. This is true because both parts are true. An example of it being false is: Tomatoes are red and pickles are pink. This is false because pickles are not pink, so this entire conjunction is false. Another type of classical abstraction is a negation. This is a claim that uses the word "not". This one is a bit confusing. A negation is true if its part is false; it is false if its part is true. For example: Jesse is not a girl. This is true if "Jesse is a girl" is false, and false if "Jesse is a girl" is true.

Week 6 - 1 of 3

The one thing that I found most useful in chapter 8 section B "Some Valid and Invalid Forms". I am going to focus on direct reasoning and arguing backwards with "all". When reasoning directly, the arguments are true. For instance, All humans have belly buttons. Sarah has a belly button. So Sarah is human. This example shows that if All S are P; a is S; So a is P. Which is valid. When arguing backwards with "all" the argument is usually weak. Here is an example: All gymnasts are left handed. Jill is left handed. So Jill is a gymnast. This argument is weak because it does not include all the possibilities. Jill can be a swimmer, a soccer player, and/or not do gymnastics at all. So this example shows that All S are P; a is P; so a is S. These two example show the difference between a valid argument and a weak one. Using the direct way of reasoning is more accurate and easier to come across a valid argument than to argue backwards.

Week 4 - 3 of 3

The one concept that I find most interesting based on the assigned readings is Refuting an Argument. You can refute an argument directly or indirectly. I am going to focus on direct. There are three fundamentals: show that at least one of the premises is dubious, show that the argument isn't valid or strong, and/or show that the conclusion is false. An example of refuting an argument directly would be: Josh claims that if he orders all the Olay foam face wash bottles that he will be set for life with face wash. JJ says that eventually one day Josh will run out of his face wash and then he won't be set forever. And when that days comes his Olay may not be caring his face wash anymore and he will have to find something new to wash his face with. This example shows a claim being made and another one refuting it. This type of rebuttle towards an argument is quite common, mainly people use it in everyday life.