Apples and oranges and zero and two... still zero.

The most useful and most significant concept I've learned all semester is the apples and oranges, or the zero times two is still zero. These are a couple concept that are constantly used, whether in real life, casual discussion, or in the media (the media especially). Often times you come across people or advertisements making claims to make their argument seem really... REAL. For one thing, the apples and oranges compare two things that don't even make sense in comparison. These arguments can be construed to be legit, and it is construed to convince. Some people may not realize how nonsensical comparing apples and oranges may be, but now I can call that out.

Plus, zero times two is still zero?! This concept is crazy. It's something that I really didn't realize before, I guess before this class I totally overlooked numbers and statistics without a stated premise. Such as... We sold ten times as many tickets as yesterday. I mean, this claim makes it seem like damn this must be a good show to sell that many tickets. But wait a second... just how many tickets were sold yesterday? What if they only sold ONE ticket? Then bam, this time they sold a whopping 10 tickets...

It's good to know!!

Favorites.

As I said in the last post, I learned a great deal about how to rebuttal a rebuttal using all the text's terminology, and I also learned how to manage my time well and wisely to get all of my work done. Over all I feel that this class has taught me those two very crucial and important things in a summer course, two vital things that I could use in a crazy fall semester.

Honestly, I have heard from other people about this course and they did not enjoy the three discussion blogs with a 12 hour requirement difference, along with the three 100 word comments on other classmate's pages. They actually described it as, "Omg it's so hard and tedious, I have to write like 1000 words a week." But on a personal level... that was the best part about this online course! I feel like this course allows us to have a voice through our posts, and we get to learn through other people's voices as well. I mean yeah, my least favorite thing was the whole 12 hour thing, but it really isn't a big deal.. I can wait 12 hours, not a problem.. But it was pretty easy to me to manage the discussion posts and comments.

Plus, "The Blogging Prof" is so sweet, and this might be a weird thing to say to an online professor that I have never met before but she is very 'approachable' in a sense. She is very understanding, and I don't think there's anything I would change about this course. It's a joy and a challenge at the same time.

What I learned.

For general class, I hope it is legitimate to say that I have learned how to argue in the most efficient way. The greatest thing I've learned is how to rebuttal a counter-argument by using all of the technical terminology we used in the text. It trips people out. It's funny though, because they're not expecting me to test their arguments by calling out fallacies and validity and apples and oranges and all of that stuff. It's not expected! But it's logical, and they have nothing to say really when I throw out all these critical thinking technicalities.

I also learned how to be way more self-disciplined. Having weekly discussions with 12 hour time frames requires really good time management. You have to make sure you spread out your work wisely otherwise you may not be able to finish everything. It's something as simple as a 12 hour difference that exerts some kind of responsibility on an online-student.

March of dimes.

I had my four friends discuss our second major assignment, which my group chose to analyze the organization March of Dimes. Just for a brief overview, the March of Dimes foundation is an organization focused on the health of babies. It focuses on the research of the causes of prematurity and educating new parents and pregnant mothers on how to treat their baby. It supports the mothers, their newborn, and promotes their health.

How do you disagree with a mission like that? As my group looked over the website to follow the prompt, I admit it was kind of difficult to find problems and fallacies. My friends thought the same thing. With a concept of helping babies and researching prematurity, it’s kind of hard to go wrong. There aren’t many claims to represent a fallacy.

However, my friends did find the same one as my group paper without reading our assignment. The March of Dimes claimed to be the most hardworking organization to help babies and find the cause of prematurity--a hyperbole that could easily be countered.

Vagueness and ambiguity...?

The ENTIRE Mission critical webpage was super helpful. It seems to be our whole textbook on a single website, and covered most of the concepts in a way that was very easy to understand.

What is crazy though, is that ambiguous and vague have two very distinct and separate meanings from each other. I had always thought such similar adjectives would entail the same definition, but when it comes down to it, I should've known... everything about the art of critical thinking involves all the specifics... of all the nitty gritty details... of all the words... of every argument. Analysis just keeps going deeper and deeper into the underlying strength and validity of the arguments made.

According to the mission critical page,

Ambiguous is a word or phrase if it has two specific meanings that makes sense in context. On the other hand, vague is a word or phrase if it has no clear meaning in context.

The two definitions, as far as critical thinking goes, are totally different from another and could alter what you mean if you interchange these words.

That's crazy. All this time, I thought it was the same.

Cause and Effect.

The Cause and Effect reading was very short, precise, and thorough. I feel it put more depth into what was explained in Epstein's reading, and the exercises was a really good addition (even though the cause and effect exercises were pretty short!)

The exercises helped exhibit the way you must critically think when reading causal arguments. You really have to pay attention and search for the conclusion at times, because often times there will be unstated conclusions or premises. The reading and exercises separated the differences between “commonalities” and “differences” and how important it is to realize these two things when reading an argument. It sets aside different ground points to the cause and effect.

Also in the reading and exercises, there was a question about “likelihood.” This stresses the evidence. Without explaining the likelihood of the causal argument, there is no support for the bridge between the cause and effect. It makes that bridge sturdy, and is a necessary piece of evidence for causal arguments.

From no business to slow business.

I really enjoyed all of Chapter 13 of Epstein because it can be directly related to certain concepts of my major. I am an advertising major, and we are all about pitching a product or service, and selling it by putting all the best feet forward. It’s a bit manipulative toward customers, and that’s what Chapter 13 illustrates in terms of numbers.

I especially noticed the “two times zero is still zero” concept that is really very applicable to advertising. It’s kind of like when a new restaurant is promoting their menu, and say “We served three times as many tables as yesterday.”

Okay... But what if yesterday, there was only one table to be served? Then that means today, they still only served three tables and while the words “three times as many” appeals to us because it sounds like a great gain, but it’s such a misleading claim that we may just contrarily be eating at a very... slow... restaurant.

First assignment as a foundation.

The first assignment served as a great foundation to begin as a student taking a critical thinking course. The beginning chapters of Epstein’s Critical Thinking, taking in chapters one all the way up to nine, involves digesting so many different ideas at once--all in which these ideas are probably new in terms of the way students actually analyze each claim and premise and conclusion. Having to take these ideas in was a little overwhelming at first, let alone having to apply these new concepts to a random article we picked off the internet.

Reading these articles, we had to ask several questions. Is this a claim? Can I believe it’s true? How can I back it up? Are these premises and claim good, bad, valid, or strong?

Right off the bat, this first assignment conditioned our analyzing eyes to answer these questions and measure the validity and greatness of a claim and our analysis of it. It seems after this assignment, I was more trained than ever to throw out a judgment call with the use of all the critical thinking concepts, because I was forced to exercise these concepts to current events.

Numbers: Me vs You

I’m probably a loser for this, but I thought the “apples and oranges” concept was cute. Well, it’s more of the name the name that’s cute rather than the actual concept... But anyways. What the “apples and oranges” concept is exactly, is a numerical comparison where it doesn’t make sense to compare the items, as stated in Epstein’s Chapter 13 on Numbers. And the example provided in the text was all about ratio... It’s kind of like saying, I’m better than you in basketball because I made 5 shots and you only made 2.

Yeah, initially it sounds like I truly am better. But the reality of it?
I made 5 shots... Out of 10.
You made 2 shots... Out of 2.

Who’s the more accurate one now? Definitely YOU!

Without that unstated comparison, the judgment call of the entire claim is easily misconstrued. Numbers can seem so certain, but are actually just as vague as words can be. Imagine if the team captain heard those initial stats (me making 5 shots, and you making 2 shots), and what if he chose me? He just chose a player with a 50% accuracy rate against a 100% accuracy rate!?

Soldiers and firemen.

In Chapter 12 of Epstein, ALL of part B. “An Example” really just blew my mind. It was like reading a never ending chain of rebuttals in an argument. It really went on for about two pages critiquing the strength and validity of the firemen-soldier argument. This entire section really goes to show that your point may never really be proven, as long as the person you are arguing with doesn’t over-analyze your premises in depth!

It was kind of crazy. It all started with the comparison:

“We don’t blame firemen for fires.
Firemen and fires are like soldier and wars.
Therefore, we should not blame soldiers for war.”

Epstein even stated “This sounds pretty reasonable.” Then he went on for another page and a half asking... And? So what?

When reasoning by analogy, you must be specific, down to the nitty gritty similarities between the two things you are comparing. The more specific (of course with relevance), the better the argument will be.

Key things in analogy reasoning: Details and relevance, and avoid the dubious.

Brinks: Appeal to fear

This is an advertisement for Brinks Home Security alarms systems. This is the perfect example for a claim that appeals to fear. As viewers, this advertisement first lets us relate to the woman in her home, doing her natural thing as we would in our own house at night (besides leaving all the windows open, that was kinda dumb haha). Then it turns such a typical scenario into a petrifying moment of attempted burglary. That’s scary, and that would definitely appeal to fear! The initial unstated conclusion of this ad would be, “Your house could get broken into, so you should get a Brinks Home Security alarm system.”
Then the ad later states, “rapid response and piece of mind for your home or business” which makes it a little more plausible. This is not a bad argument because it is reasonable to believe that the rapid response from Brinks will protect you in times of burglary, thus you will have a piece of mind.

Appeal to the (feel-good) emotion.

A premise that appeals to the emotion says you should do something because you feel a certain way, as it says in Chapter 10 of Epstein. To some extent, appealing to emotion is necessary because every decision we make is party based on how our decisions make us feel. However, “that does not mean we should be swayed entirely by our emotions.” On a personal level, we can make some rash decisions when we let our emotions control the way we react to things. That’s why this entire chapter made a lot of sense and is perfect reasoning to simple living as well as arguing.

What struck me most was the feel-good argument, just because it provoked a little giggle with the text example. A feel-good argument is one used when hence, you just want to feel good about yourself.

As the text explained, for example, is when a student gets a bad grade. They argue for a passing grade because they really enjoyed the class and appreciated the professor’s nice and fair attitude.

It isn’t necessarily a good argument, but it might make the student feel good.

Truth tables: DISJUNCTIONS

What I found really interesting was the Truth Tables.

It was mostly intriguing because of the initial complexity it shown right before you started reading. Glancing over the pages, it just looked like a bunch of A’s and B’s in ridiculous charts, but they’re actually really helpful after studying the lesson.

Let’s take the Disjunction (Or-claim) for example.
A disjunction claim is false only if both parts are false. Otherwise, the claim is true.

So my birthday is coming up, and I was brainstorming some ideas for birthday festivities and that’s when I said to myself, “I will travel to Europe on my birthday or I just won’t have a birthday at all.”

I can tell you right now, traveling to Europe is FALSE.
And you can’t just pretend you don’t have a birthday... That’s FALSE.

Thus, it is false.

I could have said, “I could travel to Europe on my birthday or I could just have a little party.” These are both truthful possibilities, thus it is true.

Conjunctions and Disjunctions

Being knowledgeable about the different forms of compound claims, and how to analyze it's truth-value, is one of the most useful techniques in arguing and analyzing. And what was most interesting was looking at all of the different truth-tables for each compound word/phrase and noticing how CAREFUL you have to be in analysis. Just one false versus one truth can be the entire difference.

For example:

There are three points on a triangle and there are three points on a square.

For this Conjunction (and-claim), it is false. In order for a conjunction to be true, both parts must be true, or it is otherwise false. Although it is true that there are three points on a triangle, the second part of this claim is false.

On the other hand:

There are three points on a triangle or there are three points on a square.

For this Disjunction (or-claim), it is true. Both alternatives for this claim is true, therefore the whole thing is true. In order for this one to be false, both parts must be false.

Chapter 8: Contradictories

In Chapter 8 of Epstein regarding General Claims and their Contradictories, I'm going to admit that I got kind of lost, moreso in a sense that I had to read, and re-read, and re-read...

"All," "some," "no," and "only," are common to use in regular discussion. Those are four words that I can use so nonchalantly and it wasn't until I read this chapter that I realized the use of these words could be totally bad, weak, or invalid, depending on how I utilize my arguments. The definitions of these words weren't the misleading parts that I had to re-read though. It's just interesting how meticulous the definitions get concerning critical thinking and arguing efficiently.

The contradictories was the confusing part! You could totally think you're saying something with the opposite truth value, but contrarily not!

Here's an example... I was at boiling crab the other day and I got a mild spice on my fries. (Which isn't even really spicy to me.) My friend says, "Some of them are really spicy!"

And before this chapter, I would think the contradictory would be to say, "Some of them are not really spicy." HOWEVER... the contradictory holding the most opposite truth value would be, "Not even one is spicy."

Kinda tricky, but so true when you think about the correct contradictories.

Interesting concept: I'll go if you go.

Chapter 6 in Epstein covered different forms of arguments using conditionals. Again, these forms are very standard and common in regular discussion, but it gets interesting when the textbook breaks everything down. The more technical the text is, the more complex the argument seems. But it could be something as simple as the direct and indirect way of reasoning with conditionals...

The DIRECT form is:

If A, then B.
A

So B.

The INDIRECT form is:
If A, then B.

Not A

So not B.

These are both valid arguments, however not necessarily good arguments, for premises could be false. For example, you hear about a big party coming up and you’re debating whether or not to go. This is probably the most common thing to hear or say: “I’m going if she’s going.” To put it into context.

DIRECT:
If she’s going, then I’m going.
She is going

So I’m going.

INDIRECT:
If she’s going, then I’m going.
She is not going
So I’m not going.

This is all valid. But what if she does in fact end up showing up to the party after all? Or what if she is just telling people she doesn’t want to go but she really does? This argument would then be valid but not good, due to a false premise. But I hope she goes, so that I go!

Chapter 7: Fuddruckers edition.

In Chapter 7 of Epstein’s Critical thinking, I think the most interesting concept was that of “ridicule.”

It’s common, it’s rude, and hence, it’s most definitely ridiculous. In every day conversation, you hear ridicule all the time. Especially from older brothers like mine. The other day we were at a Fuddruckers and I said, “Man I don’t know if I should order a salad, the Works, or with onion rings or...”--And I kind of continued for a while--”They all sound pretty good.”

This is when he says, “Well shoot, you may as well just order the whole menu.”

For one thing, ridicule isn’t even an argument.
In fact, the text explains that ridicule is “a worthless device: it ends arguments, belittles the other person, and makes enemies.” It’s crazy how typical a concept such as ridicule is in normal/rational discussion, but how useless it is when explained in context. It didn’t even help me decide what to order.

Chapter 6 Excluding possibilities

Generally speaking, the most common and useful concept explained in Epstein’s Chapter 6 Compound claims was the ‘Excluding Possibilities’ portion of Reasoning with “or” Claims. It was very clearly explained as one of the valid “or” compound claims.

And when I say that it’s useful, I mean I use it all the time.
If I had to elaborate on Excluding Possibilities in simpler terms, I would be merely talking about the process of elimination. It can’t be this, therefore it must be that. Or in more educational terms (as explained in the text), it’s also referred to as the disjunctive syllogism.

A or B

Not A, So B

It’s kind of like when my parents are trying to reason why I’m sleeping in so late on a Sunday morning: Either she stayed out late last night or she just enjoys sleeping in. Well they witnessed me walking through the door early and falling asleep last night, so I must just really love to sleep in. Sounds valid to me.

Interesting Concept.

I found Epstein’s Chapter 4 Repairing Arguments quite interesting because it’s pretty common in casual discussion to have to backtrack a conversation just so you can fix what you previously said. I find it more often than not, this happens in heated debates among non-professional debaters because they use an argument that’s just way too ahead of themselves. Or maybe that’s just me... I don’t know, but I guess in a personal sense, having to repair an argument is a regular thing!

I’m particularly referring to “The Mark of Irrationality.” This concept states that if you recognize an argument is good, it would be irrational to not accept the conclusion. As I was reading this in the chapter, I was initially thinking this should just be called the Mark of Stubbornness (haha) but it’s a little more complex than that. This mark of irrationality challenges the people in argument to reason out what they believe, is the argument good or not? Is it just clever or appealing?

If an argument is good, and you can’t find a reason as to not believing so, then be rational and take it! Or try to counter-claim with another good argument. That’s what I call a good debate. Then again, I’m just me, repairing my arguments on a regular basis.

Internet Advertising: Apple iTunes.

This is an advertisement for Apple iTunes. The presumable claim of this advertisement is that this product is revolutionizing the up and coming age of digital music.

Out of personal experience, the “most reliable source of information,” I would accept that this claim is true. I own an iPod and I do update iTunes whenever possible. Apple has created this product to be straightforward and organized. And through simple observation, iTunes has seemed to be a revolutionary product for digital music because the obvious dominance Apple has over other mp3/digital music products. I know one person that owned Zune music player (against a countless number of people that own iPods) and she eventually upgraded to an iTouch. Meanwhile, even when she had a Zune, she still had iTunes downloaded on her computer. Doesn’t that say enough? I don’t doubt the revolutionary claim.

I’m positive you can ask anyone you know and trust, and they too will tell you Apple iPods, iTouch, iTunes, all of these products have taken over the digital music age. On the plus side, Apple is a media outlet that has been developing products and programs very high on the reliability spectrum--it’s a company that is established in customer loyalty.

This claim of this advertisement had me sold from the moment I downloaded iTunes for my iPod, it’s revolutionizing, it’s true.

Content fallacies: Peer pressure edition.

You know the kind of arguments you hear and you just want to be like, are you serious? Or the arguments that make you question, does that even make sense at all? Or maybe there are just arguments that you totally overlook at the present time, then later realize how false it was. Those are fallacies--bad arguments that are simply unrepairable.

One typical fallacy would be one that takes on a “bad appeal to common belief” as mentioned in the book. This fallacy is an argument that makes a conclusion appear to be true for the mere fact that the premise is typical, regular, or frequent. However, a common standard doesn’t necessarily make it entirely true.

Take for example a moment when someone referred to a cigarette as a cancer stick.

The person smoking the cigarette said, “Whatever. Look, everyone else here is smoking and they’re fine. So it’s cool.”

Oh, on the contrary. It’s definitely not okay or ‘cool’ to smoke it without worrying about getting addicted or getting cancer (hence the ‘cancer stick’ part). Peer pressure about everything would be the greatest example of this fallacy.

I mean, if “everybody’s doing it,”

Oh, then it must be all right.

Interesting Concept.

What I found most interesting is in Epstein’s Chapter 11 on Fallacies. In regular argument or debate, I believe people regularly violate the principle of rational discussion as explained in the book.

The “Strawman” fallacy is really common actually, as it is easier to put words in other people’s mouths than to find the words to put into your own sometimes. For example, I will be telling my parents, “I didn’t have time to clean my room because I went out last night.” Thus, they respond, “So going out is more important than cleaning you room?”

Clearly, that’s not what I claimed, but it’s common to take things out of context and represent them as something else.

Violating the principle of rational discussion is where things can get heated in argument. I liked that in the end of the chapter, it was explained that we are seekers of wisdom and instead of quarrel in argument, we want to calmly debate and educate.

Strong and Valid arguments: Roommate edition.

The difference between strong and valid arguments are way less clear cut to me than the concept of subjective and objective claims. A valid argument is one that holds no possible way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. A strong argument, however, is one that could possibly have true premises and a false conclusion, just at an extremely unlikely rate.

For example, me and my girls will be getting ready to leave for a night out and that’s when I ask who unplugged the hair straightener. Julissa replies, “Danielle unplugged it. She was the last person to use it. I didn’t see anybody else go into the bathroom to unplug it after her and nobody else is home.” This is a strong argument. We could trust Julissa’s premises, and we could trust it was extremely unlikely that the straightener unplugged itself, or that our pet fish did it, or... Something merely possible, but obviously unlikely.

Other times, me and my girls will be figuring out how many units to take. “Financial aid is only given to full-time students taking 12 units, and Danielle only enrolled in 9 units. Danielle has to get 3 more units to get financial aid as a full-time student.” This is a valid argument. There’s no way that she could receive financial aid without fulfilling all 12 units, because 9 units doesn’t declare her as full-time. The premises is true, thus the conclusion is true. And otherwise, we know where her rent money is going!

Subjective and Objective Claims: Disney edition!

I hear and use both subjective and objective claims all the time, and it was only after reading Chapter 2 of Epstein that I actually understood the differences between the value in what I say. And there’s a big difference with every slight change in word choice.

Subjective claims are statements that hold truth-value only relative to the person making the claim, while objective claims are impersonal.

I went to Los Angeles this past week and a new water show World of Colors premiered to the public in Disney’s theme park California Adventure. It was amazing! It featured Disney movies of all generations, from the classic Snow White and Little Mermaid to Wall-E and Toy Story. However, not once did Mickey Mouse ever show! I’m a big Disney fan and I was a bit disappointed with that, and that’s when I made the subjective claim: “Disneyland’s Fantasmic water show is better than World of Colors.”

Saying something such as that may be true to myself and how I think, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be true for the next person. This was based on my own personal standard.

Also involving these two Disney water shows, and in reply to my claim, my friend said to me, “Yeah, plus Fantasmic is a longer show than World of Colors.” His statement is true, no matter what anybody thinks or feels concerning the water shows, therefore it is an objective claim.

Fantasmic is a longer water show than the new World of Colors (objective), and that is one reason why it is better (subjective).

(But I’d still go back to California Adventure to watch it again!)

Introductory Post.

Hey everybody!

I'm Nicolette Estrella, better known as Nikki, more or less known as the Lass Rhapsodist. I just finished my first year at San Jose State and I am currently an Advertising major. Being an Advertising major, I am so very familiar with the art of communication, verbal and visual, and I love it. I love to talk, interact, I love words. I love being on a mic, reciting spoken word poetry, communicating with people in ways I'd never imagined.

Last semester I took two online courses so the "netiquette" concept is nothing really new to me, however this is the first time I was ever required to create a blog for class. That much is pretty interesting already and I'm looking forward to the rest.