Repairing Arguments
I have some trouble on how to fix bad arguments because some arguments can't even be repaired at all. According to Epstein, to repair an argument we can either add a premise or a conclusion if it needs it. but we must consider that by making changes, 1) the argument will be valid or strong, 2) the premise is plausible, 3) the premise is more plausible than the conclusion (62) Yet that still remains confusing to me and how would I be sure that a repaired argument would be good or valid? So I done some research and I found this website by T. Gracyk that gave further explanation:
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20110/110definitions.htm#repair
The web site explain to analyze the argument and then suggest if the argument needs a premise or if it needs a conclusion. Here's an example that Gracyk used in his website:
"All cute animals have big eyes, so Muzzles have big eyes."
What are Muzzles? They can be ugly creatures or a name of an object or town. this argument is too weak, and there is not enough information to confirm the validity of the argument. This argument need a premise to make it valid. As an example to repair the argument, Gracyk added " Muzzles are cute animals".
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Discussion assignment #2
Assignment # 2 : PETA
When my group and I were working on assignment #2, it helped me understand the concept of critical thinking and to spot the slippery slopes, false dilemmas, and other fallacies found in articles. We choose PETA as a subject because they are known to be extreme but also many of their claims were found to be dubious. We found out that PETA used bad appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, bad appeal to common belief,and reasoning in a chain. They used captions like "meat is murder" or pictures of mistreated animals to capture the audience's attention. The use of celebrities or activists is an example of bad appeal to authority because people will believe them just because of their fame. Looking through the articles, my group members and I found out that some of their statements were not updated and were claim taken from data's back in the 80's. Working on this project helped me how to analyze an argument and determine if it is valid or weak.
When my group and I were working on assignment #2, it helped me understand the concept of critical thinking and to spot the slippery slopes, false dilemmas, and other fallacies found in articles. We choose PETA as a subject because they are known to be extreme but also many of their claims were found to be dubious. We found out that PETA used bad appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, bad appeal to common belief,and reasoning in a chain. They used captions like "meat is murder" or pictures of mistreated animals to capture the audience's attention. The use of celebrities or activists is an example of bad appeal to authority because people will believe them just because of their fame. Looking through the articles, my group members and I found out that some of their statements were not updated and were claim taken from data's back in the 80's. Working on this project helped me how to analyze an argument and determine if it is valid or weak.
Chapter 8 General claims
Precise generalities
There are many words that indicate precise quantity (or number) of object or people (Epstein, 170)
All, one, half, a quarter, etc are examples of precise quantities.
For example, when I cook from a recipe book, it is important that the book indicates precise quantities so that I add up the right amount of ingredient. Many people misuse the generalities and could lead the claim to a bad argument. For example, my sister and I used to argue a lot and I remember her saying, "I think all preppy girls in high school are mean". By misusing the generality word, she over estimated her opinion. Not all preppy girls are mean. If she wanted to correct her claim, she would have said " Not all, but some preppy girls in my high school are not nice to other people".
Vague generalities
Vague generalities do not precise the right amount (or number) of people or object. They are too vague which may make a claim ambiguous. Some, a few, not a lot, a lot, most, etc are vague words. For example, one of my teacher always announce grades in front of the class and she always say" A few of you had a C or a D and the rest have a B or an A" I seriously don't like when the teacher does that because I'm always afraid i'm one of those few students who got a C or D. besides how much is a few, and how much is the rest? This claim is too vague.
There are many words that indicate precise quantity (or number) of object or people (Epstein, 170)
All, one, half, a quarter, etc are examples of precise quantities.
For example, when I cook from a recipe book, it is important that the book indicates precise quantities so that I add up the right amount of ingredient. Many people misuse the generalities and could lead the claim to a bad argument. For example, my sister and I used to argue a lot and I remember her saying, "I think all preppy girls in high school are mean". By misusing the generality word, she over estimated her opinion. Not all preppy girls are mean. If she wanted to correct her claim, she would have said " Not all, but some preppy girls in my high school are not nice to other people".
Vague generalities
Vague generalities do not precise the right amount (or number) of people or object. They are too vague which may make a claim ambiguous. Some, a few, not a lot, a lot, most, etc are vague words. For example, one of my teacher always announce grades in front of the class and she always say" A few of you had a C or a D and the rest have a B or an A" I seriously don't like when the teacher does that because I'm always afraid i'm one of those few students who got a C or D. besides how much is a few, and how much is the rest? This claim is too vague.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Refuting an argument chapter 7
According to Epstein, there are two ways to refute an argument: directly and indirectly (149).
Direct ways of refuting an argument
here's an argument:
Alex: I believe that homework should be done in class.
It saves time.
Students barely have any time outside of class to do homework.
Some people have work, while others have other activities.
Besides the teacher is not there in case we need help.
Now here's Dane refute to his argument:
Class time is meant for lectures and new lessons.
There are tutors on campus in case a student needs help with homework.
Some people who have jobs do have time to do homework. ( their work schedule is planed around their classes and leave enough time for HW).
The indirect way to refute an argument is to simply not mention them, but to know that they are false or dubious, for example listening to a speech on TV.
Direct ways of refuting an argument
- 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.
here's an argument:
Alex: I believe that homework should be done in class.
It saves time.
Students barely have any time outside of class to do homework.
Some people have work, while others have other activities.
Besides the teacher is not there in case we need help.
Now here's Dane refute to his argument:
Class time is meant for lectures and new lessons.
There are tutors on campus in case a student needs help with homework.
Some people who have jobs do have time to do homework. ( their work schedule is planed around their classes and leave enough time for HW).
The indirect way to refute an argument is to simply not mention them, but to know that they are false or dubious, for example listening to a speech on TV.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Counterarguments chapter 7
Raising Objections
When making an argument, there's always going to be a counterargument, meaning a claim that will contradict the previous claim. These contradicting claims are called " objections". Here is an example that I made on my own of a bad argument between Suzy and Jim :
Suzy: People should not eat meat because it's animal cruelty.
Jim: Human beings need to eat meat because they need protein to develop.
Specially children, they need it for growth.
Suzy: But you can find protein in other food. Or you can buy supplement pills.
Jim: supplement pills tend to be expensive.
Suzy: Plus slaughter house are not treating animals properly.
Jim: What does it matter? You'll eat the meat eventually
Suzy: Stressed and abused animals can make their meat taste bad
Jim: You know not all slaughter houses treat them poorly. For example organic meat.
Suzy: Besides, cows, pigs and chicken cost a lot because you need water and food and a shelter to keep them.They take a lot of space
Jim: So what? People occupy more space on the planet than those animals. So if you think they take too much space, then we should eat them.
Suzy: No
Jim: If people stop eating meat what are we gonna do with all the cows, pigs and chicken in the world?
Suzy:....?
This is an interesting argument because it has so many pros and cons, showing many objections in this counterargument.
Attempts to refute that are bad arguments
This is the attempt to reduce an argument to make it less vague but can sometimes become a slippery slope or ridicule( Epstein, 151).
Here's an example:
A: Steeve is not feeling well today, I think he has a cold and a fever.
B: How do you know?
A: he looked pale,tired and I saw him coughing a lot.
B: Do you think he has the swine flu?
A: That could be a possibility judging his terrible condition.
B: Well hope that he doesn't grow a swirly tail, flat nose and hooves.
That's terrible :(. What if Steeve really had swine flu? I don't think that would be the case to make fun of, considering that Swine flu can be deadly.
When making an argument, there's always going to be a counterargument, meaning a claim that will contradict the previous claim. These contradicting claims are called " objections". Here is an example that I made on my own of a bad argument between Suzy and Jim :
Suzy: People should not eat meat because it's animal cruelty.
Jim: Human beings need to eat meat because they need protein to develop.
Specially children, they need it for growth.
Suzy: But you can find protein in other food. Or you can buy supplement pills.
Jim: supplement pills tend to be expensive.
Suzy: Plus slaughter house are not treating animals properly.
Jim: What does it matter? You'll eat the meat eventually
Suzy: Stressed and abused animals can make their meat taste bad
Jim: You know not all slaughter houses treat them poorly. For example organic meat.
Suzy: Besides, cows, pigs and chicken cost a lot because you need water and food and a shelter to keep them.They take a lot of space
Jim: So what? People occupy more space on the planet than those animals. So if you think they take too much space, then we should eat them.
Suzy: No
Jim: If people stop eating meat what are we gonna do with all the cows, pigs and chicken in the world?
Suzy:....?
This is an interesting argument because it has so many pros and cons, showing many objections in this counterargument.
Attempts to refute that are bad arguments
This is the attempt to reduce an argument to make it less vague but can sometimes become a slippery slope or ridicule( Epstein, 151).
Here's an example:
A: Steeve is not feeling well today, I think he has a cold and a fever.
B: How do you know?
A: he looked pale,tired and I saw him coughing a lot.
B: Do you think he has the swine flu?
A: That could be a possibility judging his terrible condition.
B: Well hope that he doesn't grow a swirly tail, flat nose and hooves.
That's terrible :(. What if Steeve really had swine flu? I don't think that would be the case to make fun of, considering that Swine flu can be deadly.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Compound claims Chapter 6
Compound claims
According to Epstein, a compound claim is one that is composed of two claims (113).
This is a compound claim:
- We will probably go to the mall or stay at home.
- I'll bake a cake, and share it with everybody.
Sometimes compound claims connects two claims with the word "or" or "and", but not necessarily.
Do not get confused with a false dilemma because not all compound claims are false dilemmas.
Reasoning with "or" claims
This is a pattern called the disjunctive syllogism to help understand an argument with a compound claim.
A or B A or B
not B or not A
so A so B
Here's an example:
Either Sarah plays with the kids outside, or she will do her homework.
But the kids are not playing outside.
So therefore, she will do her homework.
This argument is valid because the premises are true and so is the conclusion.
According to Epstein, a compound claim is one that is composed of two claims (113).
This is a compound claim:
- We will probably go to the mall or stay at home.
- I'll bake a cake, and share it with everybody.
Sometimes compound claims connects two claims with the word "or" or "and", but not necessarily.
Do not get confused with a false dilemma because not all compound claims are false dilemmas.
Reasoning with "or" claims
This is a pattern called the disjunctive syllogism to help understand an argument with a compound claim.
A or B A or B
not B or not A
so A so B
Here's an example:
Either Sarah plays with the kids outside, or she will do her homework.
But the kids are not playing outside.
So therefore, she will do her homework.
This argument is valid because the premises are true and so is the conclusion.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Mistaking the person for the claim
Epstein says that you shouldn't reject nor accept a claim just because the person who says it (97). There are many examples in daily life that reflect this mistake. For example, many republican make the mistake to disagree with Obamas' claims during his speeches just because he is a democrat. That doesn't mean that because he is a democrat, the republicans have to disagree. They may have different points of view but that does not mean that their claim is false.
Now here's another example: when you go to the doctor and he diagnosed you with a liver disease or epilepsy, do you believe him right away? Do you believe him because he is a doctor and that he has more knowledge than you? That's understandable but doctors aren't always 100% right. People presume that just because he is a doctor that he is right. Yet some doctors are not sure or just made a false claim. Maybe you don't have a liver disease but a stomach ache or food poisoning. People shouldn't judge the person and mistake them for the claim.
Now here's another example: when you go to the doctor and he diagnosed you with a liver disease or epilepsy, do you believe him right away? Do you believe him because he is a doctor and that he has more knowledge than you? That's understandable but doctors aren't always 100% right. People presume that just because he is a doctor that he is right. Yet some doctors are not sure or just made a false claim. Maybe you don't have a liver disease but a stomach ache or food poisoning. People shouldn't judge the person and mistake them for the claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)