Saturday, May 14, 2011

Likes and Dislikes

My favorite part of the class was how we were able to interact with each other through an online class, with very minimal in-person interaction. This demonstrated our ability and potential to communicate with one another, and also showed everybody’s motivation and their willingness to meet deadlines and due dates. My least favorite thing about the class was the discussion posts. Sometimes it was tough to come up with ideas just to meet the word requirement. It was also challenging to comment on other people’s posts – sometimes, there just was not too much to be said that was not said already. I also felt the tests were on the challenging side, and did not really reflect what I have actually picked up from the class. Though there were practice exercises in the book, I feel that some sort of test review for the tests would have been an improvement to the class.

Generalizations

Generalization is a topic and idea that comes up in our every day lives. It happens quite often among individuals in many different scenarios. Generalizing occurs when a claim is made about a group from a claim that has some part of it. Though generalization can have good or bad connotations, it is often used, and sometimes in the wrong situations. There are three premises that are required for a strong generalization: the sample must be representative, the sample is big enough, and the sample is studied thoroughly. The idea of a generalization has a similar basis to the idea of making a strong argument. Though a generalization may make a claim about a group or population, there needs to be some margin of error (but not too large) for the population sample. Additionally, there also needs to be a confidence level for the population sample. This level will be larger, closer to at least 95% of the generalization.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

What I Learned...

There are quite a few concepts that I have learned over the semester. Constructing an argument that is strong and has the potential to be debated over was a topic that seemed to come up throughout the class. But by demonstrating the different ideas and baseline rules that create a strong argument, I felt that we were able to complete our projects thoroughly and effectively. Additionally, many of the concepts that we were taught in the books and needed to write about in our blog involved real life experiences that occur quite frequently. This helps us to identify what types of ideas are being used in an argument. The chapter on reasoning by analogy and also the discussion of fallacies were quite interesting. It was very easy to adapt these ideas into our blog discussions since it was convenient to provide examples from our every day lives. Although this was an online class, our group projects also taught us how to work with other individuals on projects when our communication is somewhat limited.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Cause and Effect Website

The cause effect website dictates a chain reaction scenario in which an accident is caused mainly because of an illegally parked vehicle. The article then reveals that there are two rules to dealing with causations: “the cause must precede the event in time, and even a strong correlation is insufficient to prove causation.” In the bicycle and truck situation, the insurance companies argue about the primary cause of the accident. Finger pointing is very common in court cases. One party throws the fault on the other, and nobody admits to guilt. It is all about winning the case, and making sure your client comes out on top. But when it comes down to it, what was the initial cause for the accident? If the truck had not parked illegally, the bicycle would not need to swerve into traffic, which caused a chain reaction and resulted in a car rear-ending another car. This article helps to provide ideas which will strengthen an argument, and identify the main cause of a situation.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Cause and Effect

A cause and effect situation can be defined and described by claims. There is a relationship between the two, between the premises and conclusion of either a strong or valid argument. Two mistakes are often seen when evaluating a cause and effect situation. These two are: reversing the cause and effect, or looking too hard for the cause. An example of the first mistake can be seen here:

Bob: The more you shave your hair, the faster and thicker it grows back.
Rich: Why do you think so?
Bob: Well if I shave every day, and I seem to get a 5 o’clock shadow earlier and earlier every day.

Even if Bob is complaining about hair growing back by shaving often, he shaves every day regardless.

The second mistake occurs usually when someone jumps to a conclusion. Sometimes, not everything has a cause. Therefore, looking for a cause may sometimes be a waste if there is not one to begin with.

Mission: Critical

The Mission: Critical website has defines the steps to critical thinking and even has a tutorial which explains the concepts. The website is divided into sections, and consists of 4 main categories: the basics, analysis of arguments, fallacies and non-rational persuasion, and other common fallacies. The website also includes exercise and quizzes to test knowledge of the different fallacies. The purpose of this page is “to create a ‘virtual lab,’ capable of familiarizing users with the basic concepts of critical thinking in a self-paced, interactive environment.” San Jose State University’s Mission: Critical website does exactly what it was designed to do. By creating this web page, it allows students to sign on at any point and review or research any concepts that they are not familiar with. The basics section is an excellent introduction to the concept of critical thinking. Going through these individual pages lets a student grasp the simplest ideas of critical thinking. Browsing further into the subcategories will provide students with detailed explanations to analyzing arguments and fallacies. The web site is very well organized which makes it easy to navigate and find the information that you may be looking for.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Reasoning by Analogy

The text book defines reasoning by analogy as a comparison if it is part of an argument. If one side of the comparison draws a conclusion, the other side will conclude with the same. Analogies in the law is something I felt that should have been discussed in detail. One of the example introduced in the text book questions whether or not taxes apply to Internet purchases since mail-order purchases are taxed. This subject seems to be a little confusing, because of the variations of Grey areas when such legislative examples are discussed. The basis behind legal reasoning is reasoning by example. If this is the case, how do you reason with the fact that judges may rule differently depending on how the judge interprets an issue or a law? The book finally lists that even though judges may hold different rulings for similar cases, there are still differences between each individual case which will set it apart from a previous case.