Shift in the Burden of Proof, defined

One concept that I thought could use further research was the shift in the burden of proof claim found in Chapter 9 of Epstein’s text. In the textbook, there is no actual definition of the shift in the burden of proof, however, online the following definition is given: the burden of proof principle is when the individual who is challenging the argument as the individual who is supporting the argument to give them evidence to support their argument. In return, the supporter should give the other individual the information he or she wants in order to prove their point. However, when the individual does not respond with proof to the statement, the concept of burden of proof is applied because there is no proof given in the argument. After reading the website definition, everything made much more sense than before and I was able to fully understand the examples and everything else in that section of the book.

http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/resources/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/#toc-the-burden-of-proof-principle

Chapter 8

One major concept that I found interesting in Chapter 8 was generalities. According to Epstein, there are two types of generalities: precise and vague generalities. Precise generalities are exact and to the point; there is no guessing made in the statement. However, in order to be a precise generality, not one part of the statement can be false; the entire thing has to be true. Vague generalities are generalizations that do not indicate the number; instead they use words such as all, almost, many, most, and much more. Generalizations using these particular words would be considered vague generalities because they do not specifically state exactly how many and it also leaves individuals to analyze whether the statement is true or false. Although the statement may be vague, it gives individuals a good reason to believe whether or not each statement is true or false. I thought these two concepts were interesting because I personally use a lot of precise generalizations, however, I never thought that they could have the possibility of being false. After reading this, can now see my mistakes and can communicate more clearly than before.

Usefulness of Course Assignments

Even though the projects have been a little challenging, I overall really enjoyed them. I thought that the topics were pretty interesting having the second project be my favorite so far. I like how we had to choose an organization and completely pull it apart and analyze it according to the different topics that we have been discussing in our blogs and reading about in the textbook. It was a little challenging working with a group online, it was still a great learning experience because it is always nice to have an idea of what it might be like if I were to have to do a project completely online in the work world. I hope that I can use everything that I am learning in this class in the future for my other classes that I have to take and in whatever career path I choose! Thanks for reading :)

Refuting Directly and Indirectly

One concept that I found interesting was in Chapter 7, refuting directly and indirectly. There are three direct ways of refuting an argument according to Epstein:

1. Show that one of the ideas is doubtful.

2. Show that the argument is neither valid nor strong.

3. Show that that conclusion is completely untrue. 

By following these three steps, an individual can refute the argument directly at the source. These steps show that the argument cannot be fixed and therefore needs to be completely reconstructed in order to become a strong argument. At times, individuals may know that the argument is wrong but do not have the proof to show others the other side of the argument that is true. However, there are times where individuals are able to see that the argument that the other individual is trying to make is not true at all which leads to absurdity. Reducing to the absurd is where one or several claims are shown to be as false leading to the entire argument being false as well.

Chapter 7

In Chapter 7 of Epstein’s text, I learned that by raising objections in an argument, you are pointing out that the reason is invalid and therefore bad. By raising objections, individuals are creating another argument which is either calling the idea doubtful or is showing the other individuals who are involved in the conversation that the argument presented was extremely weak. If an individual “knocks off” an objection to your argument, it can be seen as smaller argument within the bigger argument that was first brought up. I found this very interesting because everyone does this on a daily basis without even knowing it. I personally do this countless times throughout my day and it goes unnoticed. After doing the reading and posting this blog, I was able to see how this really does ring true in arguments, both strong and weak, valid and invalid, that surface in everyday life.

Chapter 6: Consider the Alternatives

In the first part of Chapter 6 in Epstein’s text, he focuses on the alternatives in arguments. A compound claim is when two or more claims are linked together by a certain word, however, the claim is still seen as one idea. The word that links the claims together is known as an alternative. Alternatives can be both strong and weak; the stronger the alternative is, the stronger the argument will be. A good alternative would be or or therefore because they follow the same criteria for a valid argument. Contradictory of a claim, also known as negation, is when the claim “has the opposite truth-value” (Epstein 114). Along with the contradictory of a claim comes the contradictory of an or claim. In this type of claim, one idea and another idea are linked and contradicted by the word or. On the other hand, contradictory of an and claim is where one idea and another are linked and contradicted by the word and. Finally, Epstein talks about false dilemmas which are claims that have a bad use of not including the chance for the ”or” in the claim to be unbelievable.

Principle of Rational Discussion

The principle of rational discussion is used in conversation by all individuals who are partaking in the conversation going on. The first condition is that the participants know and understand the subject that is being discussed, are able and willing to come to a mutual decision, and are telling the whole truth. By sticking to these guidelines, the individuals who are participating in the conversation will be able to stick to the topic and idea on hand and will not veer away to a tangent.

Every time she orders a hamburger, she always says no tomato. Therefore, she does not like tomatoes.

Analysis: Because she ordered her hamburger without tomato does not automatically mean that she does not like tomatoes. She could possibly not be craving a tomato on her hamburger or might not like tomatoes on her hamburger but likes it on her salad. Instead of coming to a direct conclusion, individuals should get to know the person before making a direct decision.

Internet Advertisement

http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist34/advertisements/43aveda/43aveda.jpg

I found this advertisement online and I found it very interesting. I have never used this brand before; however, I found that the advertisement had said all the right words to motivate someone to purchase their products. Within the description, they had used terms that any woman who is reading the advertisement in a magazine or whatever other reading source that they happen to be flipping through. In reality, the person who purchases this product might feel exactly how the paragraph describes how each user is going to feel when they use the product for only the first few uses. After a week or two of using the product, the individual will become accustomed to the “feelings” that are given by the product. Additionally, the individual who purchases this product will not actually feel the feelings that are portrayed; they will be thinking those feelings because they feel that they have to after buying the product.