Begging the Question

From all the sections we haven’t studied this far, I decided to take a look back on the fallacy known as begging the question. After reading about it the first time I really did not understand what it meant. After researching on the internet I found many examples and new explanations of this fallacy. Begging the question basically means that the conclusion appears in the beginning and in the end of the argument. The site gave this example:

·         You should drive on the right side of the road because that is what the law says and the law is the law.

This example really helped me to understand this fallacy more because it gave me a clear example as to why this argument is weak. When you assume the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place you are then begging the question. I’m not sure if it was just the example in the book that confused me the first time around but after doing additional research and finding this example I understand the topic much better.

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion.htm

General claims

A lot of times people makes claims that they think are okay just because they are general. I am guilty of doing this all the time. This occurs when people use words like: all and none. According to Epstein claims with these phrases are not valid most of the time because it is hard to be completely sure that everything we are referring to applies. For example last night my friend Olivia said, “All girls like the color pink.” Well that was obviously not true because I myself know of three girls that really dislike the color pink. But less obvious examples happen all the time too. My friend Alex and I were discussing a group of people in our class that never show up and when they do they play games on their computers the whole time or talk and be disruptive. Last week after class Alex said, “Not one of those guys is passing this course, they should just drop.” At the time I just kind of ignored the comment but now I realize that his claim was not valid because there is no way he can be sure that not one of the five people have at least a “C” in the class.

usefulness of major course assignments

The two projects we have done thus far have been very helpful and eye opening. Before doing the first project I never really paid full attention to the things I was reading. If I felt the information was coming from a credible source I believed it. After dissecting the political argument I realize how persuasion influences an argument and can make it misleading. I learned that when a person is trying to convince you to take their side they will say whatever they need to convince you. They bring up a lot of points that seem valid but they don’t provide and support to their claims. On the PETA website while researching for the second group project I realized the importance of strong reasoning. Many people were asking questions doubting the validity of the organization and what it stood for. In order to keep support the organization has to be able to use strong and valid claims that persuade people to keep donating and even convince doubters to jump on board.

Raising Objections

One section that I thought was interesting in Epstein’s text was the section about raising objections. By raising an objection you are basically creating a new argument within an argument. I am the type of person that has to see it to believe it so I am constantly raising objections and counter arguing most things people say. When people raise objections they are following a pattern without even knowing it. The pattern usually starts with an argument then has a counter argument and then a counter-counter argument. This is how people reason with each other every day. It is very helpful when presenting an argument to think of way to counter it. When you do this it prepares you for any other counter arguments someone might come up with. This is a sure way to make our argument stronger and more effective. After reading this section I am more prepared to make an argument with people and have better ways to counter their counter argument.

Refuting Directly

Sometimes it is necessary to raise objections in an argument to prove that a person’s argument is sometimes irrational. One way to do this is to refute it directly. The other day I was over at a friend’s place and her roommate said that they should get rid of their internet and use the library on campus because it is hard to study at the apartment, the bills will be a lot cheaper, and the library on campus is free with plenty of space to meet for group projects. My friend obviously didn’t take this well and refuted all of her arguments by stating that it will be easier to study at the apartment if they created quite hours, the bills wouldn’t be cheaper for her because she pays for the internet with allowance money from parents, and the library on campus is not always open so they would have nowhere to meet on for projects. My friend argued each point of argument her roommate had in this discussion which ended the dispute.

Compound Claims

A compound claim links two or more claims together. Whether or not the compound claim is true depends on the truth value of the claims represented in it. Although though there may be two claims present we must view it as just one in a compound claim. Some examples:

·         Michelle promised to do or homework or stay home this weekend.

·         Alex wanted to watch the Cowboys game at home or downtown at the bars.

Compound claims are false when the contradictory of a claim is one that has the opposite truth value in all possible circumstances. For instance if Michelle promised to do homework or stay home this weekend is the compound claim then Michelle did not promise to do homework and will not stay home this weekend in the contradictory. For the second example of where Alex would watch the game the contradictory would be that Alex did not want to watch the game at home nor downtown at the bars.

Online Advertisement

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/files/original/howard_tv_ads.jpg

This is an advertisement I found online for a tv channel called the Howard TV. This ad is geared toward men in relationships with the slogan being, “you have a fifty percent chance of getting divorced anyway.” They are using this statistic to convince men that watching pornographic shows will not hurt their relationship because the chances of it working aren’t very high. I reject the claims this ad is pushing. Even if the statistic is true there are many other factors that contribute to people getting divorced besides watching porn. Also the source of this information in the ad works for Howard Stern so I have a hard time believing their claims. This advertisement is very misleading and using weak arguments to make a point. However the point of the ad is to get people’s attention which it succeeded in doing though I highly doubt many people followed through and ordered the channel.

inferring and implying

I am a very honest and blunt person so I can’t help but say what I’m thinking or how I feel about something. However because I have a need to put my opinion into everything I often imply things. Such as the other day my roommate borrowed my brand new laptop to watch a show on it she was too lazy to buy herself. When I saw her using it I was so annoyed but didn’t feel like getting into an argument by making her give me my computer so instead I said, “I have a paper to write in a few minutes.” I went down stairs and made a snack and when I got back my computer was on my bed even though she hadn’t finished watching the show. This was followed by her saying, “I don’t know what you were so mad about.” My roommate gave me back my laptop right after I left the room because I implied that I would need that specific computer to write my paper despite the fact that there are new computers downstairs in our house for homework. She then went on to infer that I was mad at her since I left the room so hastily.