Refuting an Argument

In the Epstien text, chapter 7, refuting an arguement is discussed. It talks about how people directly and indirectly refute arguements every day.

To directly refute an argument there are three ways to do this: You can prove that one premises is wrong, Prove the claim is not valid or strong, or Prove a false conclusion. The reason these are direct ways to refute an argument is because it is the most clear and concise way to disprove someones argument. If you can disprove one of the above then the person arguing does not have a leg to stand on.

To indirectly refute an argument you have to make the person arguing realize that they are wrong and the conclusion is not what they want. I believe that this is the harder way to argue most of the time. To do this you kind of "beat around the bush" until the person understands that they are not in the right.

Conditionals and Contradictories

In the Epstien text, chapter 6, section B is about conditionals. This caught my eye because I have learned about these in previous classes, but never that much about it. These are usually "if" and "when" claims. An example of this would be "If you are a bald, white male, then you must be a racist." The claim may be true for some people but it is not always true. The conditional claims make statements the can't always be proven to be true. I thought this was an interesting section because I feel we often make these claims and don't even realize it.

Criteria for accepting or rejecting

 A lot of people decide that they will accept ads too early. I feel this is an extrodanary thing that  people think that just because someone  is reliable is on the cover that they think it is reliable. i think this is an important subject.  If you believe in your self you'll be right. It's all about how much you believe in yourself. A lot of times people wanted us to drink in the dorms because they stars do it in movies and we didn't because we knew better.

Advertising on the Internet

Often times we see internet advertisement and want to buy into the propaganda. A very popular piece of advertisement on the internet is the Got Milk ads. These ads take a famous actor, actress, singer, ect. and they put a white milk mustache across their upper lip.

Here's an example: http://www.youngry.com/from-print-ads-to-internet-ads-dont-make-this-very-common-novice-mistake/

In this example they have used Halle Berry as their star. Just because a star is endorsing it people want to believe that the product is good and they can trust it. In milk's case they probably can trust it but this is just an example of how using a face everyone knows helps the companies to get people to buy their product.

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

In chapter 11 Epstein discusses what violating the principle of rational disscussion means. He says that it is when someone does not understand rational arguement or they are purposly trying to mislead. Here are some fallacies.

Begging the question: In an arguement you must prove that the claim you make is true so the premises of an arguemnet have to be stronger than the ending of it.

Strawman: Put words in your opponents mouth to misrepresent it because it's easier to make their arguement look bad.

Shifting the Burden: Make your opposition prove your claims wrong rather than prove them yourself.

Relevancy: It's not a fallacy but rather an observation that the claim being made is weak and you can't repair it.

Slanters, concealing bad claims by using misleading language and Ridicule, making someone the butt of the joke are also violations.

An example is when a politicians argue for elections they often put words in eachothers mouths and make claims their opponent has to disprove.  They also use slanters very often; as well as ridicule each other.

Vague and Ambiguious

Vague and Ambiguious sentences are similar but they are still different enough to have different description names. A vague sentence is when the thought can be passed as many different meanings and the only way we could tell what the writter meant is if he elaborated further on the thought. An ambiguious sentence is when there is only a couple ways we could possibly percive the sentence.

An example of a vague sentence would be "I always get lucky when I play at Sycuan Casino." This is vague because it may be plausable but the problem is, how can we really tell if it is? I found it funny that after some examples the author talked about how most of our sentences are vauge and we don't notice it. He used an example about a student saying "My teacher was late on Tuesday." Which Tuesday was it? How late?... Get the point?

An example of an Ambiguious statement would be, "Half of the class cares a lot about their work." This would be ambiguious becasuse what does the other hald do, not care?

I think it is really tough to tell between these two types of statements but thats what makes them intriguing.

Valid vs Strong

The differences between a vaild arguement and a strong arguement can often be a fine line but if you know the difference and stop to think about it, it can help a lot. A valid arguement is an arguement that can not be proven wrong by anyone. A strong arguement is an arguement is one that may possibly be right but not always is right.

An example of a valid arguement would be that to legally drive a car by yourself in the state of California you have to be 16, have insurance and have passed your permit test and own a legal licence. This would be valid because no one can argue that anyone under that age can legally operate a car. And if you are that age you must have insurance and a licence.

An example of a strong arguement would be that you can drive a car even if you don't have a licence. This would be a strong arguement because you may be able to operate the car but just because you can doesn't mean it is legal and you're allowed to drive it. If you were to get caught you'd get in trouble with the law and be punnished.

In the end the diffence between the two arguements is that a vaild arguement is always true. A strong arguement may be true but isn't always true.

Reasoning: Objective and Subjective

The differences between objective and subjective can be hard to tell but in the end it boils down to one is an actual fact and the other is just an opinion. A subjective way of reasoning is when it is a persons opinion on a topic. For example, I was in a discussion the other day about the differences in how firm a mattress should be. I said that firm mattress' are way better than soft mattress'. This is not a proven fact but rather my personal opinion making this an example of subjective reasoning. An example of objective reasoning would be a clear fact. For example, in the United States a person can not legally purchase any tobacco product until the age of 18. This is objective because it is a federal law that is enforced and it is 18 everywhere not just when people want it to be. Sometimes it can be tough to tell but you just have to keep in mind that subjective is an opinion from a subject. Objective is a fact, so remember that objects are facts.   

Intro

Hi class,

My names Big Cat. And to be honest I'm pretty sure I got the nickname because every time my roommates threw me off the bed I'd land on my feet. I am from San Diego, California and I am a sophmore now.

The only COMM class I've taken is COMM 20 Public Speaking. I liked it personally but I don't know what to expect from critical thinking.

I hope to understand more about COMM 41 and critical thinking and what it means.

I've also never had an online class so this is a first for me.

I enjoy hanging with friends and playing football which I play at SJSU.

Until next time,
Big Cat