General Claims and Their Contradictions
Epstein states that “we need to know how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection. Claims may seem valid but they aren’t.
For example, “All dogs like to play fetch. Jamie likes to play fetch. So Jamie is a dog.”
It seems valid but it’s not. The premises could be true but Jamie could either be a hamster, cat, hedgehog, bird or etc. that likes to play fetch. Dogs aren’t the only animals that like to play fetch. Arguments that sound correct are actually bad.
In order to avoid getting lured into belief we first must understand what “all” and “some” mean. All means “Every single one, no exceptions” or sometimes depending on the argument All could also mean “Every single one, and there is at least one.” Some means “At least one,” or “At least one, but not all,” depending on the argument. This is where contradictions play into the general claims. We use contradictions to counter arguments that we experience on the daily. Contradictions further the discussion.
For example, let’s go back to the state used above about “All dogs like to play fetch,” someone could use it’s contradiction against it, “Not all dogs like to play fetch.”
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Tammy likes to fetcg
General Claims and Their Contradictions
Epstein states that “we need to know how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection. Claims may seem valid but they aren’t.
For example, “All dogs like to play fetch. Tammy likes to play fetch. So Tammy is a dog.”
It seems valid but it’s not. The premises could be true but Tammy could either be a hamster, cat, hedgehog, bird or etc. that likes to play fetch. Dogs aren't the only animals that like to play fetch. Arguments that sound correct are actually bad.
In order to avoid getting lured into belief we first must understand what “all” and “some” mean. All means “Every single one, no exceptions” or sometimes depending on the argument All could also mean “Every single one, and there is at least one.” Some means “At least one,” or “At least one, but not all,” depending on the argument. This is where contradictions play into the general claims. We use contradictions to counter arguments that we experience on the daily. Contradictions further the discussion.
For example, let’s go back to the state used above about “All dogs like to play fetch,” someone could use it’s contradiction against it, “Not all dogs like to play fetch.”
Vague Generalities
Words that are too vague tend to make it difficult to figure out if the argument is valid. Words such as a few or a lot are too vague. But almost all and very few are two vague generalities that we can use in strong arguments.
For example, “Almost all students study” versus “A lot of students study.” The one with almost all sounds more concrete since it’s stating that not all students study. But as for the claim using a lot, it’s vague leaving you wondering how many students study? How many is a lot?
Epstein states that “we need to know how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection. Claims may seem valid but they aren’t.
For example, “All dogs like to play fetch. Tammy likes to play fetch. So Tammy is a dog.”
It seems valid but it’s not. The premises could be true but Tammy could either be a hamster, cat, hedgehog, bird or etc. that likes to play fetch. Dogs aren't the only animals that like to play fetch. Arguments that sound correct are actually bad.
In order to avoid getting lured into belief we first must understand what “all” and “some” mean. All means “Every single one, no exceptions” or sometimes depending on the argument All could also mean “Every single one, and there is at least one.” Some means “At least one,” or “At least one, but not all,” depending on the argument. This is where contradictions play into the general claims. We use contradictions to counter arguments that we experience on the daily. Contradictions further the discussion.
For example, let’s go back to the state used above about “All dogs like to play fetch,” someone could use it’s contradiction against it, “Not all dogs like to play fetch.”
Vague Generalities
Words that are too vague tend to make it difficult to figure out if the argument is valid. Words such as a few or a lot are too vague. But almost all and very few are two vague generalities that we can use in strong arguments.
For example, “Almost all students study” versus “A lot of students study.” The one with almost all sounds more concrete since it’s stating that not all students study. But as for the claim using a lot, it’s vague leaving you wondering how many students study? How many is a lot?
Friday, March 11, 2011
no use studying
Counter Arguments
There are several ways that one can use when refuting an argument directly, these include “Show that at least one of the premises is dubious. Show that the argument isn’t strong or valid. Show that the conclusion is false”.
The other day my friend was freaking out because he had a mid-term the next day and he hadn’t studied. He said, “It’s useless for me to study. I can’t find any of the answers to the short answer questions”. When he said this, my first response was “It’s not useless for you to study – even if you study with the material that you have, you’ll still be able to get some studying done and you’ll still know some things on the mid-term.”
In this case, I was attacking my brother’s conclusion and showing that it was false – thus, directly refuting his argument.
Raising Objections
Raising objections against an argument is a common way to show that an argument is bad (Epstein, 147). When we have an objection we are showing that one of the premises is questionable or there is a premise that is missing to support the argument more, thus showing why or how the argument is weak.
For example, someone could say, “We should get a new couch because I don’t like the one we have.” Objections against that could be, “We already have a functional couch no need for a new one,” or “What’s wrong with the one we’ve got” or “We don’t have money for a new couch right now” or “We would have to work extra hours to pay off the couch.”
These objections are showing that the argument about getting a new couch just because the person doesn’t prefer it isn’t strong enough. It raises many questions as to why a new couch is needed.
There are several ways that one can use when refuting an argument directly, these include “Show that at least one of the premises is dubious. Show that the argument isn’t strong or valid. Show that the conclusion is false”.
The other day my friend was freaking out because he had a mid-term the next day and he hadn’t studied. He said, “It’s useless for me to study. I can’t find any of the answers to the short answer questions”. When he said this, my first response was “It’s not useless for you to study – even if you study with the material that you have, you’ll still be able to get some studying done and you’ll still know some things on the mid-term.”
In this case, I was attacking my brother’s conclusion and showing that it was false – thus, directly refuting his argument.
Raising Objections
Raising objections against an argument is a common way to show that an argument is bad (Epstein, 147). When we have an objection we are showing that one of the premises is questionable or there is a premise that is missing to support the argument more, thus showing why or how the argument is weak.
For example, someone could say, “We should get a new couch because I don’t like the one we have.” Objections against that could be, “We already have a functional couch no need for a new one,” or “What’s wrong with the one we’ve got” or “We don’t have money for a new couch right now” or “We would have to work extra hours to pay off the couch.”
These objections are showing that the argument about getting a new couch just because the person doesn’t prefer it isn’t strong enough. It raises many questions as to why a new couch is needed.
Monday, March 7, 2011
girlfriend = -$$$$
The Contradictory of a Claim
Epstein states that compound claims are claims that are made from other claims, but it is viewed as just one claim. Since that is said, it gets confusing to try and see how the claim is false.
A contradictory of a claim is one that is opposite of the true original claim. Contradictory can be sometimes called the negation of a claim.
For example, the claim could be that “Tommy will go to the group meeting or he will hang out with his friends.” While the contradictory can be, “Tommy won’t go to the group meeting or he won’t hang out with his friends.”
Reasoning for Hypothesis
Epstein explains that reasoning for hypothesis is equivalent to these:
1.) Start with an assumption (hypothesis) A and then support that with a good argument for B;
2.) “Make a good argument for If A, then B.”
For example,
Joey: I think of going to ask Annie as my girlfriend.
Dennis: If you’re going to have a girlfriend, then I would suggest you to save up a large amount of money.
Joey: Why?
Dennis: It’s nice to be in a relationship and to have money, especially when you’re a guy. Whether you are spoiling your girlfriend with gifts, or just being able to help them out when they need it, it’s something one can appreciate. Well, you will be going to take out your girlfriend a lot by spending a lot of money, such as watching at movie theaters, eating at restaurants, going to a theme park, and so much more. Even when your girlfriend offers to pay, it doesn’t feel right for her to pay. Plus, if you guys celebrate anniversaries, then you most likely get her gifts that cost money every month. Don’t forget her birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, Valentine Days gifts or even a surprise gift. All those add up. Oh, and gas money too for your dates.
Joey: Wow, I just realized that I need a job.
Dennis hasn’t shown as to why Joey would have to save up a lot of money if he were to get a girlfriend. Rather, Dennis has shown that the assumption (hypothesis) that when Joey get a girlfriend, he will need to save up a lot of money.
That is, Dennis has proved: If Joey wants a girlfriend, then he’ll have to save money.
Epstein states that compound claims are claims that are made from other claims, but it is viewed as just one claim. Since that is said, it gets confusing to try and see how the claim is false.
A contradictory of a claim is one that is opposite of the true original claim. Contradictory can be sometimes called the negation of a claim.
For example, the claim could be that “Tommy will go to the group meeting or he will hang out with his friends.” While the contradictory can be, “Tommy won’t go to the group meeting or he won’t hang out with his friends.”
Reasoning for Hypothesis
Epstein explains that reasoning for hypothesis is equivalent to these:
1.) Start with an assumption (hypothesis) A and then support that with a good argument for B;
2.) “Make a good argument for If A, then B.”
For example,
Joey: I think of going to ask Annie as my girlfriend.
Dennis: If you’re going to have a girlfriend, then I would suggest you to save up a large amount of money.
Joey: Why?
Dennis: It’s nice to be in a relationship and to have money, especially when you’re a guy. Whether you are spoiling your girlfriend with gifts, or just being able to help them out when they need it, it’s something one can appreciate. Well, you will be going to take out your girlfriend a lot by spending a lot of money, such as watching at movie theaters, eating at restaurants, going to a theme park, and so much more. Even when your girlfriend offers to pay, it doesn’t feel right for her to pay. Plus, if you guys celebrate anniversaries, then you most likely get her gifts that cost money every month. Don’t forget her birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, Valentine Days gifts or even a surprise gift. All those add up. Oh, and gas money too for your dates.
Joey: Wow, I just realized that I need a job.
Dennis hasn’t shown as to why Joey would have to save up a lot of money if he were to get a girlfriend. Rather, Dennis has shown that the assumption (hypothesis) that when Joey get a girlfriend, he will need to save up a lot of money.
That is, Dennis has proved: If Joey wants a girlfriend, then he’ll have to save money.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
only if you pay
Compound claims are single claims made up of multiple claims. A compound claim, regardless of how many claims it consists of, is viewed as a single claim.
For instance, consider a child breaking a vase by playing ball in the house. Both of his parents are angry at him, but are undecided on who would punish him. So, either the father will punish him, or the mother will. As you can see, regardless of which premise happens (punishment from father or punishment from mother), the child will be punished for his behavior.
As stated by Epstein, "a claim is conditional if it can be rewritten as an 'if...then..." claim that must have the same truth value. In other words, something will only happen if a previous action occurs before.
For example, Monica will only go on a date with Kevin if he pays for everything. This is considered conditional because if Kevin were not to pay for everything, then Lisa would not go on a date with him.
For instance, consider a child breaking a vase by playing ball in the house. Both of his parents are angry at him, but are undecided on who would punish him. So, either the father will punish him, or the mother will. As you can see, regardless of which premise happens (punishment from father or punishment from mother), the child will be punished for his behavior.
As stated by Epstein, "a claim is conditional if it can be rewritten as an 'if...then..." claim that must have the same truth value. In other words, something will only happen if a previous action occurs before.
For example, Monica will only go on a date with Kevin if he pays for everything. This is considered conditional because if Kevin were not to pay for everything, then Lisa would not go on a date with him.
Friday, March 4, 2011
mmmm
Despite being an advertisement for fast food, it gives the subliminal message and image of sexual practices. Businesses and companies, such as Burger King in this case, have incorporated the "sex sells" cliche in their advertisements to catch the attention of people. The fact that the sandwich is called the "Super Seven Incher" would make some people that think of a certain male reproductive organ because of the attention to the size. More overpowering, the picture of the woman that is about to put a supposedly long sandwich in her mouth gives the indirect image of oral sex. The caption stating, "It'll blow your mind away", hints at oral sex as well. Advertisements like this often overhype the actual product and are only used to catch the attention of possible consumers. Although the sandwich may be appealing, the ad itself does not appeal to me because of the sexual subliminal message.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
~pray to the porcelein god~
“Kelly is going to a college party. So she will drink lots of alcohol.”
The premise is “Kelly is going to a college party”. The conclusion is “So, she will drink a lot of alcohol.”
The argument is valid, but it is not a good argument because it jumps into conclusion, which is called slippery slope fallacy. When event X has happened (or will or might happened), therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
I can alleviate this argument by adding a premise, “Since many people might be drinking, Kelly might be more tempted to drink more alcohol”.
Another premise I can add is “Kelly doesn’t have any plans the night after; and she have a reputation to “pray the porcelain god” during her college ritual.”
Furthermore, I can change the conclusion to "So, she will most likely drink a lot of alcohol".
By having this extra premises and modifying the conclusion, it gives more reason to believe the argument, which makes it valid. In addition, having more valid reasons make it harder to argue. This can make a good argument.
The premise is “Kelly is going to a college party”. The conclusion is “So, she will drink a lot of alcohol.”
The argument is valid, but it is not a good argument because it jumps into conclusion, which is called slippery slope fallacy. When event X has happened (or will or might happened), therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
I can alleviate this argument by adding a premise, “Since many people might be drinking, Kelly might be more tempted to drink more alcohol”.
Another premise I can add is “Kelly doesn’t have any plans the night after; and she have a reputation to “pray the porcelain god” during her college ritual.”
Furthermore, I can change the conclusion to "So, she will most likely drink a lot of alcohol".
By having this extra premises and modifying the conclusion, it gives more reason to believe the argument, which makes it valid. In addition, having more valid reasons make it harder to argue. This can make a good argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
