Week 9-Post 3-Fallacies

There were some Fallacies in Chapter 11 of the Epstein text that I wanted to do further research on just because they didn't seem clear enough. According to www.nizkor.org, a fallacy is " is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position". According to the website nizkor.org the following pattern must happen
1) Person A has position X.
2) Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3) Person B attacks position Y.
4) Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This fallacy is committed when people actually misinterpret the other person's argument but putting words in your opponents mouth that they did not say is not going to attack their position or argument. So this made it a bit easier to understand than the text because Epstein states about strawman fallacy is "its easier to knock down someones argument if you misinterpret it, putting words in other person's mouth" (202). But searching another link heleped me better understand this type of fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Week 9-Post 2-Group Assignment # 1: News and Politics

Well the first group assignment was critical thinking in news and politics. My group met in the library and we decided on an editorial called, “Video Games and Free Speech” which talks about when California made it illegal to sell video games to minors in 2005 which violated the first amendment of free speech. Below is the link of the editorial that our group analyzed. Well this firs group assignment was useful because it made you critically analyze the editorial by using all the subjects we have learned by reading the small group communication text, Epstein text, and by doing all these blogs. For instance I analyzed the major claim in the editorial so from what I learned from reading the two books I wrote about the major claim. For example, I stated that the major claim of this editorial is “California lawmakers may have been right when they decided that video games in which players kill and maim are not the most socially beneficial form of expression. The Constitution, however, does not require speech to be ideal for it to be protected” (NY times editorial). From what the concepts I learned from reading the books I was able to determine the major claim and explain why this is the major claim of the editorial. The reason that this is the major claim is clearly because this is clearly the opinion of the editor and what he will claim for the rest of the editorial. From there I was able to analyze the article more because clearly the author agreed with California lawmakers to ban the sale of illegal games to minors even though it violated the first amendment. So this first group assignment was useful because it made me critically use all the new concepts learn in this class to analyze this editorial as a group and it was useful using some of the concepts learn in this class to get the get the assignment done.

Week 9-Post 1-General Claims

In the Epstein text I read a section "General Claims and Their Contradictories" and Epstein states that "some" and "all" can be ambiguous. Epstein states, "All means 'Every single one, no exceptions.'Sometimes all is meant as 'Every single one, and is at least one.' Which reading is best may depend on the argument and some means 'at least one.' Sometimes some is meant as 'at least one, but not at all" (160). So in other words Epstein explains two different general claims which have to do with "all" and "some" general claims. For example, When I was in high school I was the first one of my five friends to drive. So they would all want rides, but my car is camaro that could only seat 3 other people. So i said, "I can give some of you guys of ride, but not all because my car can only fit three people". This is an example supporting or showing how "some" general claims work.
I will know explain "all" general claims by using a similar example. For example, After my camaro decided to break down on me in high school. My parents let me used their SUV which can sit 7 people. Then i told my friends, " All five of you can get a ride whenever you need one". So in difference from "some" this example shows that every single of my friends will get a ride, no exception because I have enough room to fit all of them. With my camaro I could only fit some firends but at least one friend would get a ride.

Week 7-Post 3: False Dilemas

In Chapter 6 of the Epstein text I came across a section that is called "False Dilemma". Epstein states, " A false dilemma is a bad use of excluding possibilities where the 'or' claim is false or impossible. Sometimes just the dubious 'or' claim itself is called a "false dilemma" (118). An example of a bad argument or a false dilemmas would be when the claim doesn't list all the possibilities. An example of a false dilemma would be:

My Girlfriend says, " You watch too much football all Sunday morning until the last game Sunday night and instead you should be doing something productive like using the new treadmill you just purchased. Either you limit your Sunday morning to one game and then do something productive for the rest of Sunday or the t.v. has to go.

I say : You can't take the t.v. away from me just for watching football.

My girlfriend says, " So you agree to limit your football to one game on Sunday"

Even though my girlfriend it trying to make an argument to stop me to watch football its not a very good one because she her claim doesn't state all the possibilities of what will happen if I don't stop watching football. So the example above is an example of a "False dilemma".

Week 7-Post 2: Refuting an Argument

In Chapter 7 of the Epstein text I came across a interesting section called "Refuting an Argument". According to Epstein, direct ways of refuting an argument is "show that at least one of the premises is dubious, show that the argument isn't valid or strong, show that the conclusion is false" (149). I learned that at least one of those three rules I described above is necessary to prove or go against someones argument to show that its false and the argument will no longer be valid or strong. So the point in refuting an argument is to show evidence or prove that someones argument is false or prove them wrong. I also came across a section "Attempts to refute that are bad arguments" where I learned that in rational discussion its very bad to use ridicule as a device to go refutes ones argument. Epstein states, "It ends arguments, belittles the other person, and makes enemies" (151). For example, lets say my friend says " I want to become a doctor because because I like to help people". I ridicule his argument by saying, " You don't have the dedication and smarts to ever be a doctor and laugh at his statement and idea of becoming a doctor one day". By ridiculing an argument or a refute i am only ending the argument and making insulting the person like Epstein describes in the quote above.

Week 7-Post 1: Consider Alternatives

In Chapter 6 of the Epstein text I came across a section name "Compound claims and 'or' claims". Epstein defines compound claim as "a compound claim is one composed of other claims, but has to be viewed as just one claim" (113). According to Epstein I learned that some words or sentences can have two or more claims together to come out with a new claim. The compound claim depends on the "truth value" that means is the claim truthful or is the person making the claim being truthful. For example, you tell your friend, "Can I borrow your car or can you take me home which will take more time out of your day if this is the case". I also came across a section in Chapter 6 called "The Contradictory of a claim" where I learned about a "contradictory claim". According to Epstein, a contradictory claim is " The contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite truth-value in all possible circumstances. Sometimes a contradictory is called the negation of a claim" (114). So the difference between the contradictory claim compared to a claim is the opposite of what the claim states. For instance a claim is "Bobby is afraid of horror movies". The contradictory claim would be "Bobby is not afraid of horror movies".

Week 6-Post 3: The Principle of Rational Discussion

In the Epstein text of Chapter 4 there is a section which is called "The Principle of Rational Discussion" that was interesting to read. According to Epstein, "The Principle of Rational Discussion" have three important principles that we assume that people must know to make good discussion/arguments. Epstein states, the three main principles are "knows about the subject under discussion, Is able and willing to reason well, and Is not lying" (60). Epstein goes on to talk about if your going to discuss something or argue it should be something that you have knowledge about which is part of his firs principle. For example I am not good with cars or don't know anything about mechanics so i cannot discuss about this subject, but I do watch a lot of moves so I have a lot of knowledge on different where I can open a good discussion if it comes up. The second part that Epstein talks about is that people must be able to reason well, but most people do not do so because they always want to be right and will not accept other peoples arguments so there is no point in reasoning with people who have those ideas. The final principle to reasoning with people is that the other person is not lying because if a person continuously lies there is no way you can reason with a person that lies.

Week 6-Post 2: Advertisment on Internet

In the link below its a advertisement about watching t.v online with your PC or laptop anywhere you go. This seems very convenient because you can watch t.v. programing on your laptop without having to call a cable or satellite technician to install your cable like you would for your television. This website also advertises to watch channels from over 120 different countries and over 2150 channels to watch if you get this deal to get "TV Noop on your PC". This website makes a strong argument that for only one payment of 44.95 you can get over 2150 channels compare to cable and satellite t.v. services where one pays a average of 80 dollars for about 100 channels. SO everything is sounding good but the low price and only one payment of 44.95 is to good to be true when I know for sure that cable and satellite companies are really expensive monthly costs to get cable for your t.v. Yet again they ask for credit card information to pay to get this package of over 2150 channel which could a good deal but most likely a scam to steal your credit card information or even install viruses into your computer. I was tempted to try and download it but I don't give my credit card number to websites I don't trust.

http://en.tvnoop.com/?source=ppccrash.TVNOOP&player=000000203s000003020US