Week 6 Post 3: Futher Discussions

I  think there were a lot of topics in this book that were hard  for me to understand. But most of them were easier to understand than the other ones, such as concealed claims. That was one of the concepts that i thought would need further discussions on. In the book, concealed claims had a lot to do with the words we chose to use in our arguments. There are different types of concealed claims that can affect with the way you write your claims. Loaded questions are one of those, that is sometimes hard for me to understand. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html I found this site to help those types of issues with understanding loaded questions. As I browse through this site, I found that it also offers help to understanding fallacies, another concept that was hard for me to understand as well. I think that the best way to understand difficult concepts is to just reread the chapters and discuss with your fellow classmates. Whoever can give me more details for concealed claims please leave a comment below :)

Week 6 Post 2: Chapter 8

A concept that was talked about in Chapter 8 is about general claims and their contradictories. This uses the “all or some” of the claim. In the Epstein text, it shows that, All means “Every single one, no exceptions.” Sometimes all is meant as “Every single one, and there is at least one.” Which reading is best may depend on the argument. And some means “At least one.” Sometimes some meant as “At least one, but not all.” Which reading is best may depend on the argument. An example of “all” claims would be: all grass is green, grass is green, every grass is green and everything that’s grass is green. An example of “some” would be some flowers have scents to them and at least one flower smells. Another concept that I learned from this chapter would be “only and no” when used in a claim.  I found that in the text it shows us that No means “not even one,” “every single one is not.” And Only  “Only S and P” means “All P are S.” An example of “no” would be: no grass is green. An example of “only” would be: only flowers and trees smell. 

Week 6 Post 1: Assignment 2

I think that Assignment #2 was the most useful from the two assignments we had to do. For our group, we chose to use PETA as our social organization group. I think that PETA is a great organization to look at because of how passionate they are about help and saving animals. Looking into their website, I was able to find a lot of topics that were discussed in the text, which made it clear on which side they stand on. An example of that would be concealed claims, how PETA would use dysphemism, meaning that they would use words and exaggerate the issue. I understand that there is no way of making killing animals sound good, but PETA really shows how animals are brutally treated. I like choosing social organizations then the editorial letters because we are able to analyze the website ourselves without having to either agree or disagree with the argument. I think that it’s more difficult to look for fallacies in PETA because they make it clear whose for and against wearing fur and eating meat. I like how they use celebrities to attract people to the organization.  

Week 5 Post 3: False dilemmas

A topic that I found interesting in Chapter 6 is False Dilemmas. In the Epstein text, it says that false dilemma means, “a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible. Sometimes just the dubious “or” claim itself is called a “false dilemma.” This can also be described to be a valid argument, but it isn’t a very good one which causes a false dilemma. This reminds me of the times when my mom had to wake me up in the mornings when I was in middle school. She would use false dilemmas to try to wake me up. She would start from little things like, “Wake up now or I won’t make you pancakes for breakfast.” I would just ignore it until she said, “You better wake up or I won’t drive you to school!” After I heard that I would get up real fast because I lived 40 minutes driving to school and if I were to take the bus, it would take a hour and a half. False dilemmas work, but there just the things that people say in order for you to change your bad habits.

Week 5 Post 2: Chapter 7

In Chapter 7, the main topic is about Counterarguments. The two things that interested me are refuting directly and reducing to the absurd. For refuting directly, the text shows three points that we should follow in order to do so.  1.) Show that at least one of the premises is dubious. 2.) Show that the argument isn’t valid or strong. 3.) Show that the conclusion is false. As an example, I can say that it is useless for people to have tattoos. It’s permanent and painful. Its expensive to remove if you decide it isn’t right for you. To refute this argument I can say that tattoos are something beautiful and everyone should consider. It’s like a piece of artwork that expresses who you are. We can also say that when deciding on your tattoo make sure that its what you want when your 50 years old so you won’t have to remove it.

The second thing I want to talk about is reducing to the absurd, which in the book means, “To show 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.” This causes a people to come against the argument and start from a small point like my tattoo claim and use it for other things too such as art, museums, statues and not having artists. 

Week 5 Post 1: Chapter 6

In chapter 6, there were a lot of small details to follow and learn about. The first thing that I learned about is the compound claims. In the Epstein text, it says that it means, “A compound claim is one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim.” An example of that would be, “I will buy you lunch or I’ll just cook you something to eat.” This shows that I’m not sure what I am going to be doing, but it still one claim. 

The second this I learned in Chapter 6, is about contradictory of a claim. In the text the definition of it says, “One that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances.” The claim would be, John is not a football player. The contradictory would be, John is a football player. This shows a claim that can be true but in contrary, the claim is turning in the opposite direction. 

Week 4 Post 3: Advertisements

The Old Spice Body Wash is a great example of how advertisement can alter a person’s judgment and cause people to buy their product. This is a body wash that is directed towards women to help their boyfriend/husband look like him. The Old Spice commercial has been seen on television with a great dialogue to attract its customers. “Hello ladies, look at your man then back at me, now back at your man, now back at me. Sadly he isn’t me. But if he stopped using lady scented body washes, and switch to Old Spice he could smell like its me.” This is how he starts his commercial, as it goes on, he can change his location from being in a shower, then on a boat with an oyster that can change into diamonds, and ends up on a horse! I don’t believe you can look like him if you use the product, but maybe smell like him. In reality, I’m not even sure if he even uses that product on himself. 

Week 4 Post 2: Personal Experience

I am interested in the topic of Personal Experience. In the textbook it states, “Our most reliable source of information about the world is our own experience.” I believe that this is the most valid reason of how we can show others the truth. We need to trust in ourselves because that the only legit thing that we have to prove. The only person that you can trust is from your own eyes. I remember this one time where I saw a fox in one of the parks in San Francisco. I told my friend and he did not believe me at all. He completely ignored me and said a lot of things to disprove me. I saw what I saw and it was real. A week later when I was going through Golden Gate Park, I was telling him about my story again. And as I was turning the block guess what we saw? It was the FOX! I was so happy and my friend didn’t say anything to me after that. I was able to prove him wrong and it felt so good because he thought he was right the entire time. J

Week 4 Post 1: Repairing Arguments

Repairing arguments are really simple if you follow these three steps:

1. The argument becomes stronger or valid. 2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person. 3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion. You can delete the premise only if it doesn’t make the argument worse when you do it.

            “Ivana is a vegetarian. She should plant her own vegetable garden.”

This can be a good argument if we have to add why this make more sense. I could also include that growing her own garden can help her save money instead of buying it from grocery stores. But this can also change due to that fact that the conclusion can be changed. It is because maybe Ivana may change her mind from being a vegetarian to eating meat again. Or it may be because he doesn’t have a yard or an area to grow a vegetable garden. Another reason may be that she doesn’t have the time to grow vegetables and she wants to save time.