According to Epstein's text, it says that "Bad appeal to common belief (or practice)" is a fallacy. (Epstein) Basically, that Fallacy is based on what society as a group thinks about a certain thing. So, if a certain group of people (maybe friends) think it is OKAY to do this, then that means it is acceptable. Sometimes, peer pressure can involve this Fallacy.
For example, I went to an anime convention a few months ago. In order to enter the panels of the convention, you would need a pass which costs around $60 for the entire weekend. However, these passes are easily transferable so basically anyone can gain access inside the convention.
Unfortunately, my sister, my cousin, and her friends visited the convention without passes. All of them actually wanted to go inside the panels but they didn't have passes. My sister thought of a sneaky idea. She asked me if she could borrow my pass so that she can go inside the convention. I was actually scared to do it because the penalty for getting caught is getting your pass taken away and possibly being banned from entering the convention again. I told my sister that I did not want to give away my pass because I didn't want to get caught. This is where the Fallacy comes in.
She told me that she has seen people do it and that she's very sure I wouldn't get caught. At first, I rejected her request. I did not care if "everyone" does it because I'm very cautious. She kept telling me that I'm being too paranoid and that I should just give up my pass to her.
This was a Fallacy because she tried to convince me or tell me that it is okay to transfer my pass because everyone is doing it. However, I disagreed with her and never gave her my pass.
In the end, I never gave up my pass to my sister. I admit, I have seen people transfer passes but I do not want to partake in that even though many people have done it already.
- Pink Bean
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
2) Fallacies and an Unfair Conversation About Music
In this post, I will be talking about The Beatles. If you do not know who The Beatles are, they are a rock band that became very popular in the 60's. I have done research about The Beatles several times for past essays (because I love writing essays about them ^_^) and I clearly understand why they became very famous. Songs written by The Beatles were loved by many people. It reached to the point where trends were created, and people, especially teens, were greatly influenced. A name was also made to acknowledge this period of time which is now known as The British Invasion, which was the uprising of certain bands. In addition, The Beatles also wiped off the tears of most Americans who were devastated over John F. Kennedy's assassination. They have made more impacts towards society but I'm only gonna point out those so that I can get the general idea across.
Now that I have explained what makes The Beatles a big deal to most people, I'll move on to the Fallacy I'll be talking about.
According to Critical Thinking, it shows a sample on what "Mistaking the person (group) for the claim" is. It says, "(Almost) anything that ____ says about ____ is (probably) false." In other words, if a certain person was to make a claim about something, people would less likely believe that person for certain circumstances.
For example, I was eavesdropping (I know it's bad D:), and one of my friends said, "The Beatles is the only 'real' music out there. All that rapping stuff is not 'real' music." Following that, a friend of him replied and said, "Yes, I 100% agree. Anyone who disagrees doesn't know what real music is." In a way, I can understand because The Beatles has made a huge impact in history. However, I disagree with them because there isn't really a way to define 'real' music. I think their claims were not thought of carefully. In other words, their bias-ness determined that The Beatles is "real" music and that rapping is not.
This is where a Fallacy comes in. In addition to that conversation, another person replied and said, "I do not think rap music is so bad, and that The Beatles is the only good music out there." However, the two other guys disagreed and said, "You do not have respect for The Beatles. You're a hater," and ended the conversation there. In this case, these two guys are falling for the "Mistaking the person (or group) for the claim" Fallacy. I'm gonna assume this third guy wasn't a very huge fan of The Beatles. According to this Fallacy, these two guys reacted to this non-Beatles fan (the person in the fallacy) by disagreeing with him or in other words, technically saying that he was wrong all because he wasn't a fan of The Beatles.
I think if the third guy was a Beatles fan and the other two knew, they would react very differently and actually consider listening to what he has to say. The reason why the third guy did not really have a chance to talk was because the other two assumed that he had no knowledge of The Beatles and was in no position to say that. However, if the third guy did have knowledge of The Beatles, the two guys may curiously ask, "Really?" In that case, the third guy will have a chance to explain why he said what he said.
In conclusion (and to clear things up, I know it sounds confusing!), the third guy (non-Beatles fan) suffered in the two other guy's Fallacy. Because he was a non-Beatles fan, they thought it would be right to assume that his claim (that rap music is not bad and there are more good music besides The Beatles) was wrong or false. In contrast, he would probably not suffer in their Fallacy if he was a Beatles fan because they would know that he's making that claim out of thought rather than just being bias, or being a non-Beatles fan. They would most likely listen to him because saying that is like making a claim against something you favor. In this case, he made a claim against something that he didn't favor. Therefore, they assumed that he was wrong to say those things. They assumed that his statement was false.
- Pink Bean
Now that I have explained what makes The Beatles a big deal to most people, I'll move on to the Fallacy I'll be talking about.
According to Critical Thinking, it shows a sample on what "Mistaking the person (group) for the claim" is. It says, "(Almost) anything that ____ says about ____ is (probably) false." In other words, if a certain person was to make a claim about something, people would less likely believe that person for certain circumstances.
For example, I was eavesdropping (I know it's bad D:), and one of my friends said, "The Beatles is the only 'real' music out there. All that rapping stuff is not 'real' music." Following that, a friend of him replied and said, "Yes, I 100% agree. Anyone who disagrees doesn't know what real music is." In a way, I can understand because The Beatles has made a huge impact in history. However, I disagree with them because there isn't really a way to define 'real' music. I think their claims were not thought of carefully. In other words, their bias-ness determined that The Beatles is "real" music and that rapping is not.
This is where a Fallacy comes in. In addition to that conversation, another person replied and said, "I do not think rap music is so bad, and that The Beatles is the only good music out there." However, the two other guys disagreed and said, "You do not have respect for The Beatles. You're a hater," and ended the conversation there. In this case, these two guys are falling for the "Mistaking the person (or group) for the claim" Fallacy. I'm gonna assume this third guy wasn't a very huge fan of The Beatles. According to this Fallacy, these two guys reacted to this non-Beatles fan (the person in the fallacy) by disagreeing with him or in other words, technically saying that he was wrong all because he wasn't a fan of The Beatles.
I think if the third guy was a Beatles fan and the other two knew, they would react very differently and actually consider listening to what he has to say. The reason why the third guy did not really have a chance to talk was because the other two assumed that he had no knowledge of The Beatles and was in no position to say that. However, if the third guy did have knowledge of The Beatles, the two guys may curiously ask, "Really?" In that case, the third guy will have a chance to explain why he said what he said.
In conclusion (and to clear things up, I know it sounds confusing!), the third guy (non-Beatles fan) suffered in the two other guy's Fallacy. Because he was a non-Beatles fan, they thought it would be right to assume that his claim (that rap music is not bad and there are more good music besides The Beatles) was wrong or false. In contrast, he would probably not suffer in their Fallacy if he was a Beatles fan because they would know that he's making that claim out of thought rather than just being bias, or being a non-Beatles fan. They would most likely listen to him because saying that is like making a claim against something you favor. In this case, he made a claim against something that he didn't favor. Therefore, they assumed that he was wrong to say those things. They assumed that his statement was false.
- Pink Bean
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
1) Analyzing an Argument and Including More Premises
For this post, I will answer number 2 on page 225. Below is the argument.
"I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late. Traffic is heavy. Therefore, I'll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast." (Epstein)
Is this an argument?
This is an argument because he or she is talking about why he or she is late for class. He or she going to school, leaving five minutes late, and going through heavy traffic are claims. However, I think he or she being late for class is a claim as well because it supports the conclusion which is deciding to get breakfast.
What is the conclusion?
The conclusion for this argument is stopping to get breakfast due to being late.
More premises needed?
I think a premises is needed to explain why he or she should get breakfast. If he or she did forget to eat breakfast before leaving the house, there should be a premises mentioning that. If there isn't, you can and might as well add a different conclusion. It can sound as random as saying, "So I might as well stop by the zoo and look at kangaroos," or "So I might as well stop by Build-a-Bear Workshop and make a teddy bear for my boyfriend." Although those conclusions sound very unlikely, they would sound more reasonable if a premises was added saying, "I am late for class and I have been wanting to look at kangaroos," or, "I am late today and it is Valentine's day." In this case, a premises that can be added is, "I had to skip breakfast before leaving the house." Adding this premises will support the conclusion more and provide a reason.
Subarguments?
The subarguments are going to school, being five minutes late, and going through heavy traffic. These arguments support that he or she will be late for class. Thinking that he or she will be late for class is a subargument for the conclusion which is deciding to get breakfast.
Is this a good argument?
I do not think this is a good argument because he or she did not state why he or she should get breakfast. If there was a premises that showed that he or she had a reason to get breakfast, then I would say this is a good argument. He or she also had the choice to still go to class without eating breakfast. Either way, he or she will be late.
I actually found this exercise useful because it tells you that you should be aware about your conclusion. In a way, it's a lesson teaching us that we should think before we act. For example, I already stated that it would be good to add a premises explaining why he or she would eat breakfast. It's good to add that premises because this argument is showing the way people may think before they make a decision. If I was late for class, breakfast is not the only thing that comes to mind. I could also be looking at kangaroos or going to Build-a-Bear Workshop as well. My point is that the structure of arguments relate to the way we think, and analyzing arguments and maybe adding more premises, can help us think twice before reaching a conclusion. Others can also be exposed to your arguments. I think some people would think there is no reason to get breakfast due to being late. However, people would think it is reasonable if they knew you skipped breakfast or were hungry.
- Pink Bean
"I'm on my way to school. I left five minutes late. Traffic is heavy. Therefore, I'll be late for class. So I might as well stop and get breakfast." (Epstein)
Is this an argument?
This is an argument because he or she is talking about why he or she is late for class. He or she going to school, leaving five minutes late, and going through heavy traffic are claims. However, I think he or she being late for class is a claim as well because it supports the conclusion which is deciding to get breakfast.
What is the conclusion?
The conclusion for this argument is stopping to get breakfast due to being late.
More premises needed?
I think a premises is needed to explain why he or she should get breakfast. If he or she did forget to eat breakfast before leaving the house, there should be a premises mentioning that. If there isn't, you can and might as well add a different conclusion. It can sound as random as saying, "So I might as well stop by the zoo and look at kangaroos," or "So I might as well stop by Build-a-Bear Workshop and make a teddy bear for my boyfriend." Although those conclusions sound very unlikely, they would sound more reasonable if a premises was added saying, "I am late for class and I have been wanting to look at kangaroos," or, "I am late today and it is Valentine's day." In this case, a premises that can be added is, "I had to skip breakfast before leaving the house." Adding this premises will support the conclusion more and provide a reason.
Subarguments?
The subarguments are going to school, being five minutes late, and going through heavy traffic. These arguments support that he or she will be late for class. Thinking that he or she will be late for class is a subargument for the conclusion which is deciding to get breakfast.
Is this a good argument?
I do not think this is a good argument because he or she did not state why he or she should get breakfast. If there was a premises that showed that he or she had a reason to get breakfast, then I would say this is a good argument. He or she also had the choice to still go to class without eating breakfast. Either way, he or she will be late.
I actually found this exercise useful because it tells you that you should be aware about your conclusion. In a way, it's a lesson teaching us that we should think before we act. For example, I already stated that it would be good to add a premises explaining why he or she would eat breakfast. It's good to add that premises because this argument is showing the way people may think before they make a decision. If I was late for class, breakfast is not the only thing that comes to mind. I could also be looking at kangaroos or going to Build-a-Bear Workshop as well. My point is that the structure of arguments relate to the way we think, and analyzing arguments and maybe adding more premises, can help us think twice before reaching a conclusion. Others can also be exposed to your arguments. I think some people would think there is no reason to get breakfast due to being late. However, people would think it is reasonable if they knew you skipped breakfast or were hungry.
- Pink Bean
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)