Chapter 14 Interesting Concept

In chapter 14, Epstein talks about generalizing. I found this interesting because people make generalizations all the time. Generalizing is when we conclude a claim about a group, the population, from a claim about some part of it, the sample. Plausible premises about the sample are called inductive evidence. I thought it was interesting when he talked about hasty generalizations and using anecdotal evidence. The reason this particular part stood out to me, was because I do this a lot of times. I will generalize from too small of a sample, and like Epstein said, this is how stereotypes begin. An example of a hasty generalization is: " That Asian woman got into a car accident, so all Asians are bad drivers." Lastly, a generalization is an argument. There are three premises needed for a good generalization. First, the sample is representative. Second, the sample is big enough. Third, the same is studied well.

Favorite/Least Favorite Thing

Something that was good about this class, is that it was convenient because it was an online class. I could complete all the classwork and discussions in the comfort of my own home, and I didn't have to worry about getting up to go to class. Even communicating with the professor was easy and more convenient. Instead of having to go to a professor's office and have to wait for their office hours, we could send an email and know that we would get a quick response. We were also given the option to talk by phone or by Yahoo messenger which I thought was pretty neat. The only thing that got frustrating at times was that the blog posts had to be 12 hours apart. Sometimes I would get so busy, I would forget about doing it, or I would miss my time since it was supposed to be 12 hours apart.

What Have I Learned?

Taking this course has taught me  a lot including different aspects of arguments. I have learned the structure of arguments for example compound claims. I specifically enjoyed learning about how to avoid bad arguments. Many times when people try to convince someone of their argument, they go about it in the wrong way.  They try and convince someone with their choice of words rather than by an argument. By doing this, they make a concealed claim. A specific example is called a slanter, which is any literary device that attempts to convince by using words that conceal a dubious claim. Another example is a loaded question which is a question that conceals a dubious claim that should be argued for rather than assumed. Learning about all these different types of concealed claims helps you to become a better critical thinker and helps you to make your argument stronger or more convincing.

In Chapter 15, Epstein talks about cause and effect. One particular section I found to be interesting is criteria for cause and effect. Epstein provides a list of necessary conditions  for there to be cause and effect. This includes:

1.    The cause happened ( the claim describing it is true)
2.    The effect happened (the claim describing it is true)
3.     The cause precedes the effect.
4.        It is nearly impossible for the cause to happen(be true) and the effect not to happen(be false), given the normal conditions.
5.       The cause makes a difference- if the cause had not happened(been trye) the effect would not have happened (been true)
6.       There is no common cause.

Often times in an argument people make the mistake of reversing cause and effect. You have to make sure that when using causal claims, the event that occurs first is the cause and leads to another event, which is the effect.

Mission Critical

I found the mission critical website to be a lot more useful than the cause and effect website. It was easy to understand and to the point, and it gave a good description on the different types of reasoning. It provides the basics on each type or reasoning, and it also explained different arguments. The website described inductive and deductive reasoning. I also really liked the way the page was organized into different headings and sections with links to click on. It looks a lot more organized rather than just seeing a big and long paragraph. Personally my favorite section was on the different fallacies. For each fallacy listed, you can click on it and it explains each fallacy in depth as well as provides an example to help make it easier for people to understand. To further help your understanding, the website provides little exercises for you to complete and help you review each term or concept. Overall, I thought this website was useful in helping me understand certain concepts.

Cause and Effect

I thought that this website about cause and effect was useful in helping me as well as the rest of the class, to better understand the concept.  The website explains that  causation is one of the most important uses for inductive reasoning. The author of this webpage chose a perfect scenario to help illustrate his example. Each event that occurred caused another event to occur. The biker moves into the traffic lane, which causes the driver to slam on the brakes, and then a following car slams into them as a result. The website also provides two rules to remember when dealing with causation.

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."

Fallacy Of Composition

In Chapter 12, another concept that Epstein discusses that I thought was interesting was the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is to argue that what is true of the individual is therefore true of the group, or what is true of the group is therefore true of the individual. The fallacy of composition is also inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property.  So for example:   A)All the songs on this CD last less than an hour. B) The album lasts less than an hour. This would not be true, because the CD could itself be a long CD, composed of many short tracks. This example could be found on http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/

We see examples also in our everyday lives. Another way of putting it, is guilty by association. We assume that because something is true of a group, it must be true of the individual. For example, Rosie saw a bunch of girls from a sorority getting drunk and smoking, so she assumed that since Meg is in a sorority, she drinks and smokes as well.