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?

Casual Reasoning

I chose to research the concept of casual reasoning a bit further. At first, the meaning of casual reasoning as "the idea that any cause leads to a certain effect, and is an example of inductive reasoning," was still a bit unclear in my understanding.

So I went to look up other websites that explained casual reasoning more in a much simpler way and using examples to back up their explanation. I read how scientists use casual reasoning as a way to determine hypotheses. Along with this, are "five methods of using causal reasoning to determine what causes a certain effect," which was formed by John Mill.


These five methods are as follow:

1. The Method of Agreement
2. The Method of Difference
3. Agreement and Difference
4. Concomitant Variation
5. The Method of Residues
   

Here are is an example of casual reasoning that I thought of:

EX) Rick was singing a soprano last night at a concert. This morning, he could barely speak to me.


I have provided the link I found below:

http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/jyoung/causal_arguments.htm

7 Ways To Reason

1). Reasoning by Analogy

--> Involves a comparison. Keep in mind, that just because there is a comparison, it does not mean that it is an argument.

EX) A dog is from the Canid family and so is the fox. If people can safely have a dog as a pet, then a fox should be safe as a pet too.

2). Sign Reasoning

--> An assumption that “one thing or event is a reliable indicator of another thing or event.”

EX) Julie did not pick up her phone when I tried to call her. She must be busy at work.

3). Casual Reasoning

--> “Any cause leads to a certain effect. It is seen as an example of inductive reasoning.”

EX) I stayed out late playing video games with my friends last night instead of getting sleep for the marathon I have today, so this led to my poor performance during my race.

4). Reasoning by Criteria

--> Deciding whether the criteria is valid or not.

EX) How do you know if going to the bar to celebrate a 20^th birthday party is appropriate? Let’s talk it out and possibly think of another safe location.

5). Reasoning by Example

--> Using examples in an argument to prove a point. The examples can involve anecdotes, a common scenario, or a metaphor.

EX) Do you really want to become a doctor? You have to go through at least 9 years of schooling and it’s such difficult work. Are you sure you can manage such a commitment?

6). Inductive

--> Uses “inferences from observations in order to make generalizations.”

EX) Your friends know how to make their own rice. You can too.

7). Deductive

--> It is a form of valid reasoning. All parties in this reasoning are deemed accepted and not pondered.

EX) 1. Spiders are arachnids.

2. A tarantula is a spider.

3. The tarantula is an arachnid.

Appeal to Spite

An appeal to spite is a way for an individual to get "even" with another person to justify their reasoning for doing such actions. These actions are embedded with bitterness and hatred towards the other person.

For example:

Fidel: Mitch's birthday party is this Saturday. Have you gotten anything for him?

Charlie: I am still looking for a gift. I was thinking of buying him a Powell Brand skateboard for him.

Richie lightly speaking to Charlie: Hey man, remember at your 20th birthday bash, Mitch didn't even get you a present. Why are you even bothering to get him one?


--> Richie argues that Charlie shouldn't buy a gift for Mitch's birthday because Mitch did not give a present to Charlie when it was his birthday.

A stronger premise to this argument would be, "You should not give others gifts if they did not give one to you." Even so, I don't find this to a rational reason to justify not giving a gift. It's a bit selfish to me in my opinion. Just because Mitch didn't give Charlie a gift on his birthday, it does not make it legitimately right for Charlie to turn back and do the same thing to Mitch, instead it would be due to intentions of spite.

Chapter 10 Exercise #3 - Pg. 195

The advertisement I chose was done by the Montana Meth Project, who is a group that is focusing on preventing meth use amongst people in Montana, especially those in their teen years.

The picture of the woman with uneven, stained teeth and scratches and scabs on her lips and face creates a dramatic appeal to fear towards the readers viewing this particular advertisement. The appeal to fear is that if a person does not want to end up looking like the woman above, they should most definitely not start using meth. The sarcasm of the advertisement: "You'll never worry about lipstick on your teeth again," is very intriguing and it made me think: "That is not the kind of lipstick I would like on my mouth." To me based off this advertisement, meth is not worth it and has negative effects orally.

To sum up this advertisement as an argument, the premise would be that if a person uses meth, then consequently their mouth may end up like the woman above. This is considered as a valid argument. Use meth and you will get problems in your mouth. The premise and conclusion cannot be true and false at the same time.

Although the appeal to fear is spot on and can catch a person's eye from a mile away, if there were more information pertaining facts about meth leading to harsh oral conditions, this advertisement could be much better. I get the point though and seeing that the advertisement is produced by the Montana Meth Project, it is obvious that they are convincing their audiences to back off from meth.

Appeal to Emotion - Appeal to Pity

An appeal to emotion is embedded in an argument in order to convince the person being persuade to make a decision based on how they feel about the given claim. Appeal to emotion can be easily seen in the media, such as in advertisements that involve electoral campaigns trying to play with people's feelings in order to gain votes. Commercials and magazine advertisements also play a role in appeal to emotion because they manipulate their readers to buy the products they are promoting and/or to make them feel that they need such a product to make their life or appearance more sufficient.

An appeal to emotion that pops my eye the most is an appeal to pity, which is a way to get someone to act out of sympathy. This is not an effective way to carry out a belief or action because it is solely based on emotion and not rational evidence that backs up a point of view.

For example:

Jimmy: I can't finish this slice of cheese pizza mom.

Mom: You only have half a slice of the pizza left, just finish it up.

Jimmy: But, I am really full and I can't handle it anymore.

Mom: Don't waste food. You know how many starving children there in Africa, Asia, and even parts of the United States and the rest of the world? How would they feel if they knew you wasted your food? You are privileged to be able to eat good food. So, don't be disrespectful to these children by not finishing that pizza.

Jimmy: Fine, I'll finish my food.

--> So basically, mom is using the starving children card to guilt trip her son to finish his pizza. Her argument is that there are starving children in the world, so he should not leave behind his unfinished pizza. Thus, Jimmy would feel bad about wasting his food when there are kids that don't even get to eat.