Epstein Chapter 14 Concept: Generalizations

The concept of generalizing strike out the most for me because is a common thing that I sometimes I do as well as my friends and acquaintances. Maybe generalizing is just a natural habit that a person does due to their influences from their peers, professors, the books they read, and/or the media. Overall, most generalizing comes from our experiences. Unless, you're a scientist, in which, according to Epstein, bases their generalizations "from the groups of people [they] interviewed or studied." (Epstein 279).

A generalization occurs when "we conclude a claim about a group from a claim" based off a sample. (Epstein 280). In other words, it's an extensive claim about a particular group, person, place or thing.

Generalizing is not a bad thing, rather it is a way of arguing. However, in order to make generalizations become a plausible argument, it should be backed up with facts and evident examples. Otherwise the sample you are trying to argue for based on your generalizations will not be able to convince anyone. Therefore it is essential, to have a sample that is representative, vast, and researched well. (Epstein 289).

Favorites

My favorite thing about this class was the concept of blogging. I have kept a journal in the past, but I had never written a blog before. Compared to sending in documents of my homework to my teachers via email, blogging made doing and discussing the homework more casual. I liked how I was able to freely express my thoughts on a blog without having a rubric surfacing in my mind pointing out errors in punctuation marks or slight grammar mistakes. The goal was to just answer the question in my own way and to prove that I understood the material. It made the idea of homework feel less uptight.

Although I enjoyed the assignments for the group work, I hoped that even though this is an online class that it would be simple to have sufficient communication with group members. It's not as easy to meet up as a group or get a hold of a group member like it is when there is a class setting, since the convenience of seeing your classmates at least once a week is not applicable. In the end though, I learned more about working in a group when being in an online class and how clear communication and punctuality is needed in order to successfully fulfill an assignment.

Comm 41 Has Taught Me...

...how to think critically much better. For instance, when my friend asked me if her thesis for her argument against animal cloning was effective and convincing, I advised her to elaborate on her stance the unethical procedures involved in the cloning of animals. Recommending her to explain her explanations more concretely prevents vagueness from occurring. From taking this class, I am more alert to vagueness and/or ambiguity when it comes to noting them in claims.

I also learned more about fallacies. Before immersing in this class, I knew what a fallacy meant, but I only knew 7 types of fallacies, such as appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to fear, appeal to pity, appeal to spite, appeal to ridicule, and false dilemmas. I did not realize that there were fallacies that doubled the number I knew. I learned about fallacies such as straw man, hasty generalizations, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ignoring a common cause, and begging the question. It is beneficial for me to be knowledgeable of the different types of fallacies so I would not be oblivious if I were to unintentionally make one or read one.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

There are moments in my life where I just make assumptions of the cause that led up to that particular effect at hand. These assumed causes create a post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is essentially jumping to a conclusion by thinking that whatever happened after that occurrence is the cause of it. It's a person's way of using their imagination to come up with a cause in order to understand the reasoning behind it. Yet, jumping to a conclusion omits any chance of other causes being the reason of the effect.

Example:
Ever since Mia Hamm visited our soccer team during practice, we have been on a winning streak by beating our opponents at every soccer match.

--> This reasoning that the soccer team is winning all their games ever since Mia Hamm made a special appearance during their practice is a mere coincidence. The reason the soccer team is on a winning streak could be due to the players practicing more or their determination to win in each match.

Thoughts On: Mission Critical Website

I really liked the Mission Critical website because it outlined most of the content that we have been reading and discussing about throughout the semester, such as the premises, vagueness and ambiguity, fallacies, causal arguments, and more.

The concept of deductive reasoning was still unclear for me and what helped me improve my understanding of it the most was by doing the exercises they provided for this concept. If I got an answer right or wrong they would explain why such a decision happened. After taking the practice tests, I can identify that the main premise in deductive reasoning has to have a commonality between to terms and can be stated as a "generalization, rule or principle." Additionally, I learned that when restating a claim for deductive reasoning, is to remember to "replace active or passive verbs with state-of-being verbs," such as is, am, was, are, being, be, were, and been and to condense sentences in any way I want as long as it does not cause confusion. Lastly, deductive reasoning can contain of syllogisms. A syllogism follows: If A is true then B is true (If A then B) --> Example: "All dogs have tails." Syllogism: "If Ralph is a dog, then he has a tail."

Now, I know which website to refer to if I ever need a refresh about the critical thinking concepts we have learned.

Thoughts On: Cause and Effect website

I felt the Cause and Effect to be a confusing website to comprehend in one gulp due to all the information being splayed throughout the web page. If they had condensed it by narrowing down and outlining the important information of casual arguments, it may have been clearer for me to understand and grasp the content the first time. Although, there were some interesting examples on the website that partially guided me to understand the concept of casual arguments.

What confused me the most was the example of the bicyclist and the illegal truck. First it explains the claims given by the bicyclist and illegal truck to defend their cases "seems to fit the pattern of an inductive argument, because none of them seems based on observation or experience. But, in fact, they do fit that pattern. " And then the explanation transitions to that inductive reasoning are based on observed instances, yet this particular argument did not require such observations because of the similar arguments that the lawyers came up with? That part left me dumbfounded in determining when a casual argument can make do without using observational instances to defend a stance.

Judging Analogies

An analogy is a comparison to two words or phrases that have a similar relationship. There is no need to analyze an analogy in an argument as long as it is executed coherently. If the analogy is not clear enough to make out, then action must take place to evaluate whether both pairs in the analogy actually show similarities and "guess the important ones" to find a central "principle that applies to both sides." (Epstein 256).

An example:

It is wrong for the government to provide marijuana to the public just as it is wrong for people to sell marijuana on the streets to other people.

This analogy is not sufficient because the government may be providing marijuana for different reasons than a person selling it on the street. The government may be allowing the use of marijuana to individuals that need to relieve their pain whereas people selling it on the street may be drug dealers looking for quick cash. There are not enough premises to back this analogy up; therefore it is not convincing in an argument.

Additionally, when evaluating an analogy, consider these 7 questions: (Epstein 257)

1. Is this an argument? What is the conclusion?
2. What is the comparison?
3. What are the premises? (one or both sides of the comparison)
4. What are the similarities?
5. Can we state the similarities as premises & find a general principal that covers the two sides? Do the differences matter?
   
6. Is the argument strong or valid? Is it good?