Concept that I found useful

I thought that I found Chapter 11, about Fallacies, interesting and useful. With this Chapter, I was able to distinguish the different kinds of bad argument and recognize when they were being used. The examples helped me as well, because I heard those arguments so many times in my life and I didn't know they were considered as fallacies. So next time I hear someone saying one of the examples, I will know that it will be a bad argument. Many of the times it is hard to have a good argument with someone if they say a fallacies and most of the time it is hard to fix fallacies (sometimes). A lot of the time those fallacies are used in TV commercial, speeches, or campaigns. For examples, in campaigns such as PETA, they use appeal to emotion and bad appeal to common belief to make people feel guilty and stop eating meat or wear fur. The use of image is also a way to make people feel a certain way.

Favorite/less favorite

Well my favorite part of this class is that I was able to work in a group and meet people who were in the class. I enjoyed working in a group and learn from everybody else. The post also were interesting because I could see everyone's point of view and different blog. I just think that learning something new in general is what I like the most. I also liked the fact that this class was online other wise I don't think I would be able to place this class in my schedule.

The thing I really didn't like was the fact that I couldn't see the mistakes I've done on the test. If I saw the results, I would remember and take notes. But it didn't which one did I do well and which one I did poorly. I didn't like the fact it was timed. It is very stressful and distracting so that is why I did bad on the tests.

what I have learned

Before taking this course, I thought to myself "omg critical thinking! I don't think i'm that smart to think logically. But then when reading the book I found it very easy to understand and I eventually learned new information that I didn't know before. For example, I learned that there were many different kinds of fallacies and mistakes in a claim. Now if I am looking at a claim done by a commercial or anything on TV or in a Magazine, I would be able to analyze it before and judge wether or nor this claim makes sense or if it's a fallacy. Also I learned how to evaluate if an argument is week or strong depending on the context. I learned how to think before of what i'm gonna say in an argument. I just learned a lot of useful materials that I can actually use in life. The Epstein book critical thinking helped me a lot. Although, I wish we were able to look at our tests corrections, like that I would know to not do this mistake again.

Two mistakes when evaluating cause and effect

When reading the book, I found it very useful to know that there were common mistakes when evaluating cause and effect. According to Epstein, there are two types of common mistakes: a) reversing cause and effect. b) Looking too hard for a cause (308).

A. Reversing cause and effect

This is a common mistake that people do.
Here is an example:

Sarah: Exercising a lot makes you hungry and thirsty
Tim: Are you hungry and thirsty now?
Sarah: Nope because I haven't exercise yet.

Well Sarah said that she wasn't hungry because she hasn't exercised yet, but that is not the only way people can get hungry. Exercising is not the only cause of hunger and thirst.

B. Looking too hard for a cause

It is unnecessary to explain to a person what was the cause of that event. Some cause are not even sure or identified. Some are just coincidence like Epstein explains on page 309.

Mission Critical website

Inductive and deductive reasoning

I remember when we discussed this topic in one of the previous chapter and it seem vague to me. But when I read the website it gave a clear definition and comprehensible examples. According to the website, inductive reasoning are based on opinion, observation or experiences. Deductive reasoning is based on real facts or laws. For example, when I accidentally touched the pan on the stove it burned my hand and I remove my hand quickly . This is an example of inductive reasoning. When I say that the reason I removed my hand so fast, is because of nerves reactions or scientific fact.

To help me furthermore, I did the exercises below the lesson and that helped me distinguish that difference between an inductive and deductive phrase. It helped me to analyze first why one sentence is not a deductive reasoning: Could that sentence be an observation or experience instead?

Cause and Effect website

It took me a while to understand what the website about causal argument was describing, but the exercise help me clarify what it means. I also took at look at chapter 15 on page 302 to understand " causes and effects".
The "cause" according to the website is what happen so that it affected the other event. In other words, for example, the cold season caused Jim to wear warm clothes. Because it is cold outside and Jim does not want to be sick, he puts a coat, glove and scarf. Another example, the cat's presence caused Alice to sneeze. Because the cat was near Alice, she sneezed because of her allergies to cats. In other words the cat was the cause of her sneezing.
Cause and effect can also be described as a "domino effect" because one event can cause others events which can cause another one and another one, like the example used in the website.
On the website, they used the example of the accident with the bicyclist and two cars. I say that it is the truck's fault that he was parked illegally on the bicycle lane, which caused the bicycle to go on the traffic lane, and then caused the accident.

additional research: Judging Analogies

Epstein explained that reasoning by analogy is arguing with comparison. "On one side of the comparison we draw a conclusion, so on the other side we should conclude the same"(253).
At first when I read the definition of " Judging Analogies" on page 256, I was a bit lost and the book didn't explained really clearly. So I went online and find more information about it. Here is the link to the web site:

-http://www.gregcaughill.com/philosophy-wiki/philosophy-course-notes/104-arguments-by-analogy.html

According to Greg Caughill, the writer of the web site, said that there are four main flaws when judging analogies. 1) It could have a false premise. 2) Lookout for equivocations. 3) Unstated premises. 4) Lookout for fallacies. Then Caughill states that there are two questions that we might ask when judging an analogy:
A) Are the shared features relevant? If not, analogy fails B) Are they sufficient to establish the connection? No, the subjects are too much alike. Or no, they are way too different to make analogy.