First, one mode of communication is not good. We communicated via email. Many assumptions were made and they only caused some of us grief.
Second, what I found useful was no matter how organized you think you are and no matter how hard you try to communicate well with others, it is not as good as 1) in person, 2) over the phone, or 3) both. So, communicate in person, over the phone and via email to avoid any misunderstanding.
Third, don’t freak out at the end because it causes you to make BAD CHOICES, like taking over and not letting your coworkers/cowriters in on the fact that you are taking over and rewriting everything. When you are at the last stages of the paper (that means lots of rewrites by everyone and it has all been approved up to this stage) and you have instructions to edit or fix a few things, then that is all you should be doing!! There are exceptions, of course, like if you see a huge error, then you should bring it to everyone’s attention and fix it. But, and here comes the next one….
Fourth, NEVER attempt to rewrite most of the paper at the umpteenth hour!! Bad idea, because you WILL run out of time. In my case, my cowriter decided to change what I had done only to have to change it back again because I was right. That was a waste of time. Why not instead ask questions for clarification and avoid wasting the group’s time. Working together and not against each other is better
Overall, though, I think our paper turned out pretty good. But there was no need for all of the stress that some people put us through. We could have avoided it by doing only what was needed to be done at the last hour instead of reverting to trying to rewrite everything. In the end, the paper looked almost the same and just a bit better. Not sure it was worth all of the pressure we were put through!
Bottom Line: Keep the communication lines open all the time. Don’t try and take over because that leaves the group out and defeats the purpose of a group assignment.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THOSE GRAPHS! :O)
I always thought that graphs were the easiest thing to read. After reading this section in chapter 13, I was given much more insight. It will totally change the way I look at graphs now. :o)
First, check graph information against your own personal experience. For example, the graph used in the book (Example 1, pg. 270) shows us that the average (?) cost of a college education in 1997 was $2,600. But it does not show if that covers books and housing for one year. It doesn’t clarify if this is for more than one year. But given my experience, this is highly unlikely. In the second example, (Example 2), the numbers are right, but the graph “exaggerates the differences between years.” The difference in the lengths of the bars are bigger than the actual percentage increase. So the bars appear to make the difference look a lot bigger than it actually was. “A graph is likely to distort comparisons if the baseline is not zero or if it uses bars.” Epstein, pg. 270.
Angles of the lines can be exaggerated simply by “the spacing of the scales on the axes.” Visually this affects how we perceive the increase or decrease in prices. “A graph can create misleading comparisons by the choice of how the measuring points on the axes are spaced.” Epstein, pg. 271.
The graph on page 272 shows stocks from different periods. The graph with the longer period of stock performance gives us a better picture probably because they are using 1993 prices, according to Epstein. This longer history of stocks (from 1925-1998) gives us a better picture because it shows that stocks are “sometimes profitable and sometimes unprofitable.”
In my personal experience, I can say that I have based my investments on the stock market numbers. The graph is very important as it tells me what my stock is worth and you can view the graphs over time, e.g., today’s stock, last year’s, or over many years. Many years ago Apple’s stock was at $24.00 per share. I told my husband that we should invest in Apple. He didn’t think it was a good idea. Now the stock has jumped to $266.00. That would have made a nice little retirement! :o) If I had misread the chart, we could have been in the hole a lot of money! Well, I forget to tell you one minor detail-we didn’t have any extra money so we couldn’t afford it anyway!! Que sera, sera! Bummer!!!
First, check graph information against your own personal experience. For example, the graph used in the book (Example 1, pg. 270) shows us that the average (?) cost of a college education in 1997 was $2,600. But it does not show if that covers books and housing for one year. It doesn’t clarify if this is for more than one year. But given my experience, this is highly unlikely. In the second example, (Example 2), the numbers are right, but the graph “exaggerates the differences between years.” The difference in the lengths of the bars are bigger than the actual percentage increase. So the bars appear to make the difference look a lot bigger than it actually was. “A graph is likely to distort comparisons if the baseline is not zero or if it uses bars.” Epstein, pg. 270.
Angles of the lines can be exaggerated simply by “the spacing of the scales on the axes.” Visually this affects how we perceive the increase or decrease in prices. “A graph can create misleading comparisons by the choice of how the measuring points on the axes are spaced.” Epstein, pg. 271.
The graph on page 272 shows stocks from different periods. The graph with the longer period of stock performance gives us a better picture probably because they are using 1993 prices, according to Epstein. This longer history of stocks (from 1925-1998) gives us a better picture because it shows that stocks are “sometimes profitable and sometimes unprofitable.”
In my personal experience, I can say that I have based my investments on the stock market numbers. The graph is very important as it tells me what my stock is worth and you can view the graphs over time, e.g., today’s stock, last year’s, or over many years. Many years ago Apple’s stock was at $24.00 per share. I told my husband that we should invest in Apple. He didn’t think it was a good idea. Now the stock has jumped to $266.00. That would have made a nice little retirement! :o) If I had misread the chart, we could have been in the hole a lot of money! Well, I forget to tell you one minor detail-we didn’t have any extra money so we couldn’t afford it anyway!! Que sera, sera! Bummer!!!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
HONEST OR DECEITFUL? THE NUMBERS GAME
In Epstein’s book, Critical Thinking, Chapter 13 discusses the way numbers can be misleading or wonderful (if correct) in presenting claims.
When used correctly or should I say, honestly, numbers are very powerful. You can see immediately that numbers speak volumes when placed in a spreadsheet or presentation or used in oral communication, such as a speech, to support a claim. Numbers can also be used to lie and deceive its audience. This can lead to many very bad outcomes. For example, there are some companies that lie about their income, expenditures and revenue to the shareholders so that the company can continue to APPEAR to be in the black. The one thing about numbers is that you can make them look good on paper, but if you’re not paying the bills, eventually your company will go under.
Several examples of what to look for are:
1) Apples and oranges: a numerical comparison where it does not make sense to compare the items;
2) Two times zero is still zero: a numerical comparison that makes something look impressive but the base of the comparison is not stated. (like clothes on sale for 30% off; off the price or the suggested retail price?)
3) Percentage of what?
4) Graphs: can mislead or conceal claims “by not taking the base of the comparison to be zero, or by using bars, or by spacing the numbers on the axes in certain ways.”
5) Averages: get the average or mean by adding the numbers then dividing by the number of items. Median: midway mark; the same number of items above as below. Mode: number most often obtained. The mean or the mode is more significant than the average.
When used correctly or should I say, honestly, numbers are very powerful. You can see immediately that numbers speak volumes when placed in a spreadsheet or presentation or used in oral communication, such as a speech, to support a claim. Numbers can also be used to lie and deceive its audience. This can lead to many very bad outcomes. For example, there are some companies that lie about their income, expenditures and revenue to the shareholders so that the company can continue to APPEAR to be in the black. The one thing about numbers is that you can make them look good on paper, but if you’re not paying the bills, eventually your company will go under.
Several examples of what to look for are:
1) Apples and oranges: a numerical comparison where it does not make sense to compare the items;
2) Two times zero is still zero: a numerical comparison that makes something look impressive but the base of the comparison is not stated. (like clothes on sale for 30% off; off the price or the suggested retail price?)
3) Percentage of what?
4) Graphs: can mislead or conceal claims “by not taking the base of the comparison to be zero, or by using bars, or by spacing the numbers on the axes in certain ways.”
5) Averages: get the average or mean by adding the numbers then dividing by the number of items. Median: midway mark; the same number of items above as below. Mode: number most often obtained. The mean or the mode is more significant than the average.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
APPEAL TO FEAR - Blog 3
I chose an old TV commercial (see link below) that shows an egg frying, or rather sizzling in a frying pan which states:
"This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" Then it shows who the commercial is sponsored by, Partnership for a Drug-free America.
This is actually a very good commercial. It is meant to scare people who are thinking about trying drugs and also for those who already do drugs. The commercial is saying that if you do drugs your brains will be fried. It's a pretty good argument and appeal to fear. It is an appeal to a person’s fear of getting their brain messed up or destroyed.
Basically, the unstated by very plausible appeal to emotion is: “You should not do drugs if you’re afraid of destroying your brain.” I think this is a very cut and dry appeal to fear commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U
"This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" Then it shows who the commercial is sponsored by, Partnership for a Drug-free America.
This is actually a very good commercial. It is meant to scare people who are thinking about trying drugs and also for those who already do drugs. The commercial is saying that if you do drugs your brains will be fried. It's a pretty good argument and appeal to fear. It is an appeal to a person’s fear of getting their brain messed up or destroyed.
Basically, the unstated by very plausible appeal to emotion is: “You should not do drugs if you’re afraid of destroying your brain.” I think this is a very cut and dry appeal to fear commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U
Reasoning By Analogy (REPOST)
Reasoning by analogy is using a comparison as part of an argument. One side of the comparison is the conclusion and the "other side should conclude the same." However, not every comparison is an argument.
Epstein uses the example, “My love is like a red, red rose.” This is a comparison only because no conclusion is drawn. This would normally be called an analogy. However, analogies are “often only suggestions for arguments,” that must be taken “seriously” because they are used in “science, law, and ethics.”
To tell if an analogy is good we must pick out important similarities that can be used as premises. We need to ask the question “So?” so we can decide whether or not an analogy is good. Some similarities do not apply or matter, while others are vague and therefore, we cannot use them. We need to come up with some principle that applies to both sides. We need to ask questions like, “Are all premises true?” “Is the argument good?” Next, we have to look for the differences to see if there is any reason the "general principle" may not apply to one of the sides.
Epstein uses the example, “My love is like a red, red rose.” This is a comparison only because no conclusion is drawn. This would normally be called an analogy. However, analogies are “often only suggestions for arguments,” that must be taken “seriously” because they are used in “science, law, and ethics.”
To tell if an analogy is good we must pick out important similarities that can be used as premises. We need to ask the question “So?” so we can decide whether or not an analogy is good. Some similarities do not apply or matter, while others are vague and therefore, we cannot use them. We need to come up with some principle that applies to both sides. We need to ask questions like, “Are all premises true?” “Is the argument good?” Next, we have to look for the differences to see if there is any reason the "general principle" may not apply to one of the sides.
Friday, July 23, 2010
REASONING BY ANALOGY
Reasoning by analogy is using a comparison as part of an argument. One side of the comparison is the conclusion and the "other side should conclude the same." However, not every comparison is an argument.
Epstein uses the example, “My love is like a red, red rose.” This is a comparison only because no conclusion is drawn. This would normally be called an analogy. However, analogies are “often only suggestions for arguments,” that must be taken “seriously” because they are used in “science, law, and ethics.”
To tell if an analogy is good we must pick out important similarities that can be used as premises. We need to ask the question “So?” so we can decide whether or not an analogy is good. Some similarities do not apply or matter, while others are vague and therefore, we cannot use them. We need to come up with some principle that applies to both sides. We need to ask questions like, “Are all premises true?” “Is the argument good?” Next, we have to look for the differences to see if there is any reason the "general principle" may not apply to one of the sides.
Epstein uses the example, “My love is like a red, red rose.” This is a comparison only because no conclusion is drawn. This would normally be called an analogy. However, analogies are “often only suggestions for arguments,” that must be taken “seriously” because they are used in “science, law, and ethics.”
To tell if an analogy is good we must pick out important similarities that can be used as premises. We need to ask the question “So?” so we can decide whether or not an analogy is good. Some similarities do not apply or matter, while others are vague and therefore, we cannot use them. We need to come up with some principle that applies to both sides. We need to ask questions like, “Are all premises true?” “Is the argument good?” Next, we have to look for the differences to see if there is any reason the "general principle" may not apply to one of the sides.
What do you practice? Forgiveness or revenge?
An “appeal to spite” is another appeal to emotion when communicating and/or persuading others. Basically, it is getting revenge, getting even, or getting back at someone for doing you wrong. In Epstein, p. 193, it states that this is usually rejected “as bad by some people on moral grounds.” However, “In some cultures…it’s not only acceptable, but a moral imperative…to preserve one’s ‘honor.’” So some people find it bad and others find it a necessary defense reaction.
Also, an “appeal to spite” often invokes the "two wrongs MAKE a right" principle.
When I was growing up, I was taught the total opposite, that two wrongs DON’T make a right! And I try to live by that rule. However, as the book states, an “appeal to spite” is when a person does something bad or mean to you and you respond with doing something bad or mean to them. This is another emotion people use in the art of communication. In other words, it is used to persuade someone to do something based on revenge.
It’s not good in my book! But, you can make your choice and suffer the consequences. Hmmm…..was that just an appeal to fear statement I just made? We’ll leave that for another post! :o)
Also, an “appeal to spite” often invokes the "two wrongs MAKE a right" principle.
When I was growing up, I was taught the total opposite, that two wrongs DON’T make a right! And I try to live by that rule. However, as the book states, an “appeal to spite” is when a person does something bad or mean to you and you respond with doing something bad or mean to them. This is another emotion people use in the art of communication. In other words, it is used to persuade someone to do something based on revenge.
It’s not good in my book! But, you can make your choice and suffer the consequences. Hmmm…..was that just an appeal to fear statement I just made? We’ll leave that for another post! :o)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
What is a Categorical Syllogism?
ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC: WHAT THE HECK IS A CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM? 7/17/10
What in the world is a categorical syllogism? It is “an argument composed of three categorical claims, two premises and a conclusion. The three claims use three terms as subject or predicate, each of which appears in exactly two of the claims.” Got that?? ;o)
The book offers up the following:
No police officers are thieves.
Some thieves are sent to prison.
So no police officers are sent to prison.
The terms “police officers,” “thieves,” “people sent to prison,” appear in two of the claims. Aristotelian logic “identifies the predicates and subjects in syllogisms by the roles they play in determining whether the argument is valid.” For example, major, minor, and middle terms, and major and minor premises. Aristotelians “identify the predicates and subjects in syllogisms by the roles they play in determining whether the argument is valid.” Epstein p. 381.
Epstein states that the major term is: people sent to prison. The minor term is: police officers. The middle term is: thieves. And the major PREMISE is: “Some thieves are sent to prison.” Therefore the minor PREMISE is “No police officers are thieves.”
Aristotelian logic focuses on showing that we can “mechanically determine any given categorical syllogism whether it is valid or invalid. One way to do that is by inspecting its form.” AL lists all forms of syllogisms into STANDARD FORM. The claims are in standard, major premises is first, minor is next, and the conclusion follows. Then you go down each line and determine whether it is valid or invalid.
What in the world is a categorical syllogism? It is “an argument composed of three categorical claims, two premises and a conclusion. The three claims use three terms as subject or predicate, each of which appears in exactly two of the claims.” Got that?? ;o)
The book offers up the following:
No police officers are thieves.
Some thieves are sent to prison.
So no police officers are sent to prison.
The terms “police officers,” “thieves,” “people sent to prison,” appear in two of the claims. Aristotelian logic “identifies the predicates and subjects in syllogisms by the roles they play in determining whether the argument is valid.” For example, major, minor, and middle terms, and major and minor premises. Aristotelians “identify the predicates and subjects in syllogisms by the roles they play in determining whether the argument is valid.” Epstein p. 381.
Epstein states that the major term is: people sent to prison. The minor term is: police officers. The middle term is: thieves. And the major PREMISE is: “Some thieves are sent to prison.” Therefore the minor PREMISE is “No police officers are thieves.”
Aristotelian logic focuses on showing that we can “mechanically determine any given categorical syllogism whether it is valid or invalid. One way to do that is by inspecting its form.” AL lists all forms of syllogisms into STANDARD FORM. The claims are in standard, major premises is first, minor is next, and the conclusion follows. Then you go down each line and determine whether it is valid or invalid.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
REVISED - SAY WHAT??
Why is it so much trouble to communicate well? I mean will we have to "diagram" every time we speak?? I don't think so!! As we practice these formulas, over time we will get better and faster at them. We will be able to spot whether a claim is true or false and "how it is compounded from other claims." How compound claims use the words (and, or not if...then...) "depends on the truth or falsity (truth-value) of the claims from which they are built." We are not to rely on anything else except "whether the claim is true or false and how it is compounded from other claims." (Epstein, p. 359)
The symbols used for these words are ˄ for and, ˅ for or, ┐for not, and → for if…then…
Example, Jill is a girl and John is a boy. When is this true? When both are true. According to Epstein, this is the only way it can be true. Epstein p.360.
A personal example is Mary is a classical pianist and Johnny is a tenor. Based on my personal experience, I know both of these statements to be true. The only way this can be true is when both statements are true and in this case they are.
The symbols used for these words are ˄ for and, ˅ for or, ┐for not, and → for if…then…
Example, Jill is a girl and John is a boy. When is this true? When both are true. According to Epstein, this is the only way it can be true. Epstein p.360.
A personal example is Mary is a classical pianist and Johnny is a tenor. Based on my personal experience, I know both of these statements to be true. The only way this can be true is when both statements are true and in this case they are.
SAY WHAT?? THE TRUTH?? WHAT'S THAT?
Why is it so much trouble to communicate well? I mean will we have to "diagram" every time we speak?? I don't think so!! As we practice these formulas, over time we will get better and faster at them. We will be able to spot whether a claim is true or false and "how it is compounded from other claims."
How compound claims use the words (and, or not if...then...) "depends on the truth or falsity (truth-value) of the claims from which they are built." We are not to rely on anything else except "whether the claim is true or false and how it is compounded from other claims." (Epstein, p. 359)
The symbols used for these words are ˄ for and, ˅ for or, ┐for not, and → for if…then… These symbols help us be precise about "how we will understand these words in arguments, relative to the classical abstraction.
CLASSICAL ABSTRACTION:
The only aspects of a claim we'll pay attention to are whether the claim is true or false, and how it is compounded from other claims.
For example, Jill is a girl and John is a boy. When is this true? When both are true. According to Epstein, this is the only way it can be true. Epstein p.360.
Friday, July 16, 2010
GENERAL CLAIMS ARE SO GENERAL! :O)
General claims, as described in Chapter 8 of Richard L. Epstein's book Critical Thinking, that "assert something in a general way about all or a part of a collection," can seem valid, but can also be bad arguments even if they sound right. We need to look more closely at them and avoid "getting lured into belief" of those claims by clarifying words such as "all, some, no," and "only."
Epstein further defines that:
There is another way to check the validity of these claims by using diagrams such as the "direct way of reasoning" and "arguing backwards" with "all" and "no" and "reasoning in a chain" with "all" and "some."
Remember that the contradictory of a general claim is "one that always has the opposite truth-value." For example, the contradictory of "All dogs bark." is "Some dogs don't bark."
Using the ALL word, my personal example is when I was on Facebook I noticed that a friend wrote a statement that said, "Higher learning is the absurd, perpetuation of lies and unfounded fantasies." For privacy reasons, I won't give my friend's name. But I thought that was a very stupid comment. In this case, the ALL definition used here is "Every single one, no exceptions." My friend is basically saying that ALL higher learning is this way. Any reasonable critical thinker would see that this is an invalid statement that falls on its face because it has nothing to support it. No legs, man, no legs!!
Epstein further defines that:
All means "Every single one, no exceptions." Sometimes all is meant as "Every single one, and there is at least one." Which reading is best may depend on the argument.
Some means "At least one." Sometimes some is meant as "At least one, but not all." Which reading is best may depend on the argument.
No means "not even one," "every single one is not."
Only "Only S are P" means "All P are S."
There is another way to check the validity of these claims by using diagrams such as the "direct way of reasoning" and "arguing backwards" with "all" and "no" and "reasoning in a chain" with "all" and "some."
Remember that the contradictory of a general claim is "one that always has the opposite truth-value." For example, the contradictory of "All dogs bark." is "Some dogs don't bark."
Using the ALL word, my personal example is when I was on Facebook I noticed that a friend wrote a statement that said, "Higher learning is the absurd, perpetuation of lies and unfounded fantasies." For privacy reasons, I won't give my friend's name. But I thought that was a very stupid comment. In this case, the ALL definition used here is "Every single one, no exceptions." My friend is basically saying that ALL higher learning is this way. Any reasonable critical thinker would see that this is an invalid statement that falls on its face because it has nothing to support it. No legs, man, no legs!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)