Chapter 15 of our critical thinking book covers the topic of Cause and Effect. The concept of Cause and Effect is described very throughly by Epstein but it also talks a lot about topics that are related. This was a very long chapter, but it is not only makes clear what cause and effect is, but it also presents other concepts such as overlooking a common cause. This concept was a little confusing to understand, the concept was presented with "night causes day" the common cause is said to be "it was night" and "it is now day" it took me a while to grasp the idea of what this could mean or what example to present with something i have heard recently or apply this idea to a general statement but i was able to come up with the following:
person 1: She didn't eat because she was not hungry.
person 2: She didn't eat because she does not eat pork.
this puts person 1 in doubt of the claim they state without making the claim false.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Week 11: Mission Critical
What was useful about the Mission Critical webiste?
The Mission Critical website was a very useful website. This website pretty much summarizes a lot if not all that we have learned about critical thinking and then some. I recognizes all of the material presented here but then there was also other things that are also helpful to understand the different concepts. For example, i learned a lil bit about Post Hoc Reasoning and its meaning of "after this, therefore because of this." (unless it WAS in the text and i totally missed it :/) but i overall likes this website. It serve as a great review; and even as a great lesson. This would actually be a very good place for people to start learning about critical thinking. It is an extremely detailed website and it breaks everything down into sections, making it easy to find an label what is being read. For people in our section that are still confused about a few of the topics we have been discussing, this will be a great refreshment and tool to catch up!
The Mission Critical website was a very useful website. This website pretty much summarizes a lot if not all that we have learned about critical thinking and then some. I recognizes all of the material presented here but then there was also other things that are also helpful to understand the different concepts. For example, i learned a lil bit about Post Hoc Reasoning and its meaning of "after this, therefore because of this." (unless it WAS in the text and i totally missed it :/) but i overall likes this website. It serve as a great review; and even as a great lesson. This would actually be a very good place for people to start learning about critical thinking. It is an extremely detailed website and it breaks everything down into sections, making it easy to find an label what is being read. For people in our section that are still confused about a few of the topics we have been discussing, this will be a great refreshment and tool to catch up!
Monday, November 15, 2010
Week 11: Cause and Effect
What was useful about the Cause and Effect website reading and exercises?
After reading over the information provided in the Cause and Effect website, i was able to get a more clear understanding of the differences between the two. this website provided with a great explanation of cause and effects and provides with an example to support and demonstrate. The website states that there are three main factors of which casual argument rely on for strength in the argument, which is what i learned. These factors are; how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is, how likely the case for causation seems to be, and how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is. this was very clear and set proper guidelines on what was being pointed out. I also enjoyed the exercise about the potato salad that was offered at the end of the lecture. I walked me thought understanding what i had just read and it was effective for sure.
After reading over the information provided in the Cause and Effect website, i was able to get a more clear understanding of the differences between the two. this website provided with a great explanation of cause and effects and provides with an example to support and demonstrate. The website states that there are three main factors of which casual argument rely on for strength in the argument, which is what i learned. These factors are; how acceptable or demonstrable the implied comparison is, how likely the case for causation seems to be, and how credible the "only significant difference" or "only significant commonality" claim is. this was very clear and set proper guidelines on what was being pointed out. I also enjoyed the exercise about the potato salad that was offered at the end of the lecture. I walked me thought understanding what i had just read and it was effective for sure.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Week 10: Judging Analogies.
Pick one concept or idea from the assigned reading, that we have not already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
In chapter 12, titled Reasoning by Analogy, of the Critical thinking book, author Richard Epstein talks about Judging Analogies. Judging Analogies basically refers to the way that we analyze, or as it is referred "judge" an argument. This topic provided a few examples to help explain what judging by analogy actually meant. it was very clear after reading through the section that it talked about how to analyze a topic in order to be able to judge on why an argument was actually stated. it helps find the relevance between one premise and another premise. It is better to actually analyze than just referring to an argument as vague. it more difficult to explain than it is to actually understand after reading through the examples that the author provides. i cant really think of a good example myself though but it is a good lesson on how to analyze to be able to connect one side to an analogy to the other and finds its premise.
In chapter 12, titled Reasoning by Analogy, of the Critical thinking book, author Richard Epstein talks about Judging Analogies. Judging Analogies basically refers to the way that we analyze, or as it is referred "judge" an argument. This topic provided a few examples to help explain what judging by analogy actually meant. it was very clear after reading through the section that it talked about how to analyze a topic in order to be able to judge on why an argument was actually stated. it helps find the relevance between one premise and another premise. It is better to actually analyze than just referring to an argument as vague. it more difficult to explain than it is to actually understand after reading through the examples that the author provides. i cant really think of a good example myself though but it is a good lesson on how to analyze to be able to connect one side to an analogy to the other and finds its premise.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Week 10: Understanding
Sometimes when something is diffciult to understand, it becomes a bit clearer when we try to explain it to someone else. Which type of reasoning was most difficult to understand? Please do some additional internet research on that specific type of reasoning and discuss what you learned.
after giving examples of all of the different types of reasonings, i found two that were a bit confusing. both Deductive and Reasoning by Analogy were a bit difficult for me to understand at first. I might still not understand but they both seem to be very similar to one another. Even after reading multiple web pages an blogs, the examples that i have been seeing are not so much different from one another. the reasoning in a deductive argument is set to be true, or in other words, valid. but what is true then about reasoning by analogy? wouldn't this also be a true statement? or argument? even the examples that i provided in an earlier post sound alike in terms of reasoning pattern so there might be something im not quiet catching, any ideas?
after giving examples of all of the different types of reasonings, i found two that were a bit confusing. both Deductive and Reasoning by Analogy were a bit difficult for me to understand at first. I might still not understand but they both seem to be very similar to one another. Even after reading multiple web pages an blogs, the examples that i have been seeing are not so much different from one another. the reasoning in a deductive argument is set to be true, or in other words, valid. but what is true then about reasoning by analogy? wouldn't this also be a true statement? or argument? even the examples that i provided in an earlier post sound alike in terms of reasoning pattern so there might be something im not quiet catching, any ideas?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
week 10: Types of Reasoning
1). Reasoning by Analogy
ex:
P1: Older People drive slow
P2: my cousin just turned 9 and my dad turned 46
Conclusion: my cousin drives faster than my dad
2). Sign Reasoning
ex:
there must be a great sale, theres a lot of people at the mall.
3). Causal Reasoning
ex:
Every time i hit the snooze button, i'm late for work.
4). Reasoning by Criteria
ex:
You are a huge fan of Usher, are you sure you want to miss the concert?
5). Reasoning by Example
ex:
You should definitely go with Progressive. I have progressive and they are both reliable and affordable.
6). Inductive
ex:
my mom drink a glass of lemonade every morning. Tomorrow, early in the morning she will drink another glass of lemonade.
7). Deductive
ex:
pam prepared a cake
the cake had strawberries.
pam prepared strawberries.
ex:
P1: Older People drive slow
P2: my cousin just turned 9 and my dad turned 46
Conclusion: my cousin drives faster than my dad
2). Sign Reasoning
ex:
there must be a great sale, theres a lot of people at the mall.
3). Causal Reasoning
ex:
Every time i hit the snooze button, i'm late for work.
4). Reasoning by Criteria
ex:
You are a huge fan of Usher, are you sure you want to miss the concert?
5). Reasoning by Example
ex:
You should definitely go with Progressive. I have progressive and they are both reliable and affordable.
6). Inductive
ex:
my mom drink a glass of lemonade every morning. Tomorrow, early in the morning she will drink another glass of lemonade.
7). Deductive
ex:
pam prepared a cake
the cake had strawberries.
pam prepared strawberries.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Week 9: Slanter
Pick one concept, idea or exercise from the assigned reading, that we have no already discussed, that you found useful or interesting, and discuss it.
Chapter nine starts off with talking about thee term Slanter. The term slanter is the term to describe an item used to convince or pursue with word choice that hides a dubious claim. this is used to try to get people to believe a dubious claim, it wants us to think something is true. I find this a bit confusing to understand, ii had to read it a few times before understanding it and i still dont know if i completely understand. the definition is worded weird, but i provide an example of what i think is portrays; how was the halloween party you were invited to go? did you have a good time?-- answer "why do you ask as if i attended?" the answer to the question is what slanter is. it answers a question in a mischievous way as if something is being hidden. does this sound accurate?
Chapter nine starts off with talking about thee term Slanter. The term slanter is the term to describe an item used to convince or pursue with word choice that hides a dubious claim. this is used to try to get people to believe a dubious claim, it wants us to think something is true. I find this a bit confusing to understand, ii had to read it a few times before understanding it and i still dont know if i completely understand. the definition is worded weird, but i provide an example of what i think is portrays; how was the halloween party you were invited to go? did you have a good time?-- answer "why do you ask as if i attended?" the answer to the question is what slanter is. it answers a question in a mischievous way as if something is being hidden. does this sound accurate?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)