Saturday, November 20, 2010

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?

Friday, November 19, 2010

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.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

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.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Chapter 10 Question #7 " Appeal to patriotism"

7. Give an example of an appeal to patriotism. Is it a good argument? (195)

At first when I read the question, I was surprise to find that there was a kind of appeal of emotion called " appeal of patriotism".To learn a little bit more about it, I went online and found this online article by Glen Warchol:

-http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0823-04.htm

This article describes how protesters in the U.S use appeal to patriotism to protest against the war in Iraq. The mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson who was at the protest, used the appeal of patriotism to get support and fight against the war in Iraq. He said," We can debate, as we should in a free country, the decisions of our political leaders. But we must always support without wavering, and be grateful toward, our men and women in the armed forces" (Warchol). Anderson also claimed " we are grateful for what veterans have scarified for our country and our freedom". These statements above are examples of appeal to patriotism because they emphasize on the love of ones country in order to get people to act (like the protesters or activists).

Friday, November 5, 2010

Objective p.195

1. Write a bad argument in favor of affirmative action whose only premises appeal to pity.

People should stop hunting animals. It is unmoral and innocent animals get killed for no reason. Poaching is a sinful job because hunters go hunt animals for a money. Many of those animals that are being hunted are going extinct because of over-poaching such as tigers, rhinoceros ,elephants, jaguars, and other species. Do you like cute animals? Do you like chinchillas or baby seals? Well guess what, those poor little creature are being beaten to death for their fur, which is then sold for ridiculously expensive. How would you feel if you were separated from your family and beaten to death? You probably wouldn't want that. Humans are just purely selfish and kill innocent animals for their own profits.

This argument uses descriptions of tortured animals so that people feel pity for them. I personally do not like poaching and I do think it is purely unmoral.

Appeal to Emotion

According to Epstein, "An appeal to emotion in a argument is just a premise that says, roughly, you should believe or do something because you feel a certain way" (191).
There are four types of appeal of emotion in chapter 10 : appeal to pity, appeal to fear, appeal to spite, and appeal to vanity. The appeal to pity is trying to make you believe in something because you feel a certain way ( angry, happy,sad,...). The appeal of fear simply uses fear to control the way people should think or act. An appeal to spite is also seeking for revenge (193). The appeal of vanity is the use of compliments or flatters so that a person feels good about themselves. But the one that intrigued me was the appeal of spite. In the example used, Dick decides to help Tom even if Tom didn't helped Dick fix the fence last week and Zoe seem to be bothered by it (193). Maybe Tom had an appointment or he was sick or he is physically disabled. Personally, it wouldn't bother me to help someone else even if it takes them a while for them to help me in return. As long as they do me a favor back. :)