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.