further discussion

One concept that I would personally like to go further into discussion about is Concealed claims. In chapter 9, Epstein talks about  the many ways we  conceal claims through our choice of words. Slanters , which are any literary devices that attempt to convince by using words that conceal a dubious claim, are the most common.  Slanters can present either  a positive or negative spin on something. For example euphemisms are words or phrases that make something sound better than a neutral description. Euphemisms are used in every day life and throughout our lifetime we have heard a number of them.

A euphemism for dying is “to pass away.”  Dysphemisms are words or phrases that make something sound worse that a neutral description. A dysphemism for a used car would be “junker.” Other types of concealed claims include downplayers which are words or phrases that minimize the significance of a claim and up players which exaggerate the significance.

http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/cumming/ling50/euphemism%2Bdysphemism.htm

Usefulness of Assignment #2

Working on assignment 2 about Social Organizations has turned out to be useful in many ways. For one thing, I learned a lot about the actual organization that we chose to do our project on which  was PETA. I've always heard about PETA and known they did stuff for animal rights, but I didn't really know specifics. Even though I don't plan on giving up meat and going vegetarian any time soon, it was interesting to see from their point of view, what they believed in, and how animals should be treated. Another thing that was useful about doing this assignment was how it linked into concepts from the text. I learned how to spot and recognize concealed claims in advertisements. Many organizations besides PETA try to appeal to your emotions to help support their cause. Sometimes it can be unintentional, but they include the use of different fallacies such as ridicule and strawman. To make their arguments even stronger, a lot of times organizations use celebrities to endorse and promote themselves.They know that people tend to conform to what everyone else is doing, so if the celebrities are doing it, and it's a trend, it's most likely that people will follow suit.

Chapter 8 General Claims

General claims are used to help us assert something in a general way about all or part of a collection. Two common words that people use when making general claims are "all" and "some." Both of these words can be ambiguous.All means "every single one, no exceptions."  Some means "at least one"  An example of a general claim using all would be : All drivers must pass their drivers' license test, before being issued a license.  An example of a general claim using some would be:  Some people prefer chocolate milkshakes to vanilla  milkshakes.  General claims can also have a contradictory. A contradictory of a claim is one that always has the opposite truth value. For example a claim would be " No men like to cook." The contradictory would be " Some men like to cook."  I use general claims in my everyday life, and sometimes they may not necessarily be true. Just yesterday I remember saying, " All Asians eat rice." The contradictory would be" Some Asians don't eat rice."

Interesting/ Useful Topic

One thing that I found to be particularly interesting was in Chapter 6 when Epstein talks about false dilemmas. A false dilemma is 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." False dilemmas usually arise when  we allow ourselves to be convinced that we have to choose between two exclusive options and that's it. When someone uses a false dilemma they have a sort of "take it or leave it" attitude. False dilemmas omit the consideration of other reasonable alternatives. An example of a false dilemma would be " Rachel has lost some weight. Either she's been going to the gym or she's anorexic."  In this example, it's easy to tell that the "or" claim  is implausible, and that it excludes possibilities. Rachel could just have a fast metabolism, or maybe she's been running every day to practice for an upcoming marathon. There are different possibilities that could be responsible for Rachel's weight loss, it doesn't mean she's anorexic.

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 discusses counter-arguments. One of the concepts Epstein talks about is raising objections. He states that the purpose of raising objections is to show that an argument is bad. In doing so, we are making another argument that either calls into question one of the premises, or shows that an unstated premise is dubious, or illustrates why the argument is weak. An example of raising an objection would be if someone were to say
"Cats are great pets because they're cute and they don't require as much attention as other pets because they are independent." Raising an objection could be: "Yeah but you can't have any fun with it, you can't walk it, or play fetch. And what if you're allergic to cats?"
Another concept discussed in chapter 7 is refuting an argument. There are three ways to directly refute and argument:
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.
We can also refute an argument by showing that a false or absurd conclusion follows from the premises. To do that we  must be sure that any other claims we use to get the  false or absurd conclusion are plausible, and that the argument we give is strong or valid.

Chapter 6

In chapter 6, Epstein talks about compound claims. A compound claim is one composed of other claims, but which has to be viewed as just one claim. The word "or" can link two claims to make a compound.
For example, " Either the Giants win this game tonight, or the Braves will take the series." The part of the claim that comes after the "or" is known as the alternative.
Another concept that I learned about was conditional claims. A conditional claim is a conditional if it can be rewritten as an "if.. then.. claim that must have the same truth-value. An example of a conditional claim would be:

" If you clean your room and wash the dishes, then I'll let you go to Lui's birthday party."

In a conditional written as "If A, then B" the claim A is known as the antecedent, and the claim B is the consequent. So in the example I gave, "If you clean your room" would be the antecedent. " Then I'll let you go to Lui's birthday party" is the consequent.

Interesting/Useful Concept

In chapter 5, Section B, Epstein talks about criteria for accepting or rejecting claims. He writes that there are no absolute rules for when to accept, when to reject, and when to suspend judgment about a claim. The first point he mentions and the concept I found most interesting was personal experience. Our most reliable source of information about the world is our own experience. Our beliefs derive from our own personal experience. As we go on through life, our beliefs grow from what we see, read, hear, or think about. So, when it comes to accepting or rejecting claims, our own personal experiences plays a key role. For example, we're not going to believe something someone said if we've experienced  it ourselves. If someone said, " It always snows in San Jose, and it's really cold." I would immediately reject this claim, because I go to school here at SJSU and I know that it does not snow here from personal experience. So, in conclusion, we accept a claim if we know it's true from our own experience and we reject a claim if we know it's false from our own experience. However there are a couple of exceptions:

A) we have good reason to doubt our memory or our perception

B) the claim contradicts other experiences of ours and there is a good argument against the claim.