DQ #2 Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion consists of four different examples. The first one is begging the question, the second is strawman, the third is shifting the burden of proof, and the last is relevance. The strawman violation is one that I feel many people can relate to and deal with on a regular basis whether it be at work or at school. In many situations when someone is trying to prove their argument is correct and that someone else's argument is incorrect, the only way for them to make their argument good is by making the others person's argument bad. In order to do this the person will change what the other person has said about their argument in order to make it sound like a bad argument. The person will basically make up lies about what the other person is arguing to make himself look better. It is better known as putting words in someone else's mouth.

Discussion Question 3

One other interesting thing that I learned in this Chapter was that an
argument cannot be rated as good or bad on the fact that it convinces a person
or not. There are many different situations that would cause a person not to be
persuaded by an argument so that is why you can’t judge the strength of an
argument on whether or not it convinced someone to change their mind. There is
no real exact scale to judge to strength of an argument. The only way to
judge an argument is by how plausible and likely the premises offered in the
argument are. This is something that I never knew was true because whenever
someone won a debate I always assumed it was because they had a strong argument
but this is not the case. Whether the argument is won or not has nothing to do
with the strength of the argument. This was a very interesting concept to me
that I had never really thought of before that I am very glad I learned the
truth behind.

DQ1 Three tests

There are three tests that are designed to help you decide if an argument is a good argument or a bad one. The first test is: are the premises plausible? This means that you must see if there is no way for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The second test is if the premises are more plausible than the conclusion? This means that you must test to see if the premises are more likely than the conclusion itself. The third test is if the argument is valid or strong. I am going to use the example of having a temperature and being sick. Bob has a temperature. People who have temperatures are sick. So Bob is sick. First we must test to see if the premises are plausible. We have good reason to believe that if people have a temperature than they are sick so this claim is plausible. The second test is to see if the premises are more plausible than the conclusion. The conclusion follows the premises perfectly and could not be false if the premises are true. This also proves that the argument is valid which leads us into the third test. The third test is to see if the argument is valid or strong. We have already stated that the argument is valid so the last test is to see if it is a strong argument. There is no way for the conclusion to be false and the premises be true except for some very unlikely and very implausible reasons. This means that the argument is a strong argument.

Strong and Valid Arguments

Strong arguments are arguments where the conclusion made is very hard to prove false or wrong. An example of a strong argument than many people deal with on a very regular basis either with themselves, their kids, or their families is being sick with a fever. The premises and the conclusion are always stated like the following argument; if someone has a temperature than they are sick. Albert has a temperature. Therefore, Albert is sick. This is an argument that is stated time and time again by parents and many others. This is an example of a strong argument because almost everyone knows and believes that if you have a temperature than you are sick. It is very hard to come up with reasons for this not to be true. The only way that someone can come up with a way to prove this conclusion false is by using a very implausible and unlikely situation such as: Someone can have a temperature if they had surgery on their brain and the doctors messed up and now their temperature is always high. Although this is a way to prove the conclusion wrong it is a highly unlikely situation. A valid argument is one where there is no way for the premise to be true and the conclusion false. An example of a valid argument is: you must be 16 years of age or older to receive a driver’s license. Therefore I am 16 years or older because I have a drivers license. This is an example of a valid argument because there is no way for it to be false.

Prescriptive and Descriptive Claims

Prescriptive and descriptive claims are very similar to subjective and objective
claims in the definitions. The difference is that prescriptive and descriptive
claims is that they are judgments. A claim is descriptive if it is true and if
it states a fact. The claim "the sun is bright" is a descriptive claim because
it is stating a true fact about the sun. A prescriptive claim, on the other
hand, is making a statement about something the should be true or should be
happening. The statement "you should wear sunglasses" is a prescriptive claim
because it is stating something that should be happening and that should be
true. Just because you believe something to be true does not make it a
descriptive claim. "Cursing is bad" is a prescriptive claim because even though
someone may believe that statement to be true, it is not a true fact. Value judgments are made very commonly using prescriptive claims. If something should be "better" or if something is "worse"
than these are prescriptive claims that are value judgments.

Vague Sentences

One of my jobs is a nanny for many different families. One family that I work for has two kids and I watch them Monday through Friday in the mornings from 5:30 until 8:30. Some mornings for breakfast the kids ask for cereal. They are a healthy family that in general buys organic foods and they always buy their cereal from Trader Joes. One the front of one of the boxes of cereal it says "Organic Cereal" in big letters across the top of the box. Below that lettering if says "lowers cholesterol" Both o these statements are vague statements. "Organic Cereal"  is a vague claim because what qualifies as organic? Is every ingredient used in the cereal organic? The company puts this label on their cereal because many people believe that if it says organic it is healthy. The statement "lowers cholesterol" is also a vague claim because not every person that eats this cereal has reduces levels of cholesterol. This cereal may help people with high cholesterol reduce their levels but it is not a guarantee. The company that makes this cereal puts this on their cereal because people who have high cholesterol see this claim on the box and buy it because they believe this claim to be true.

Discussion Question #1

The other night I went to hang out with some friends at one their houses.
While we were there one of my girlfriends and I turned on the movie Sweet Home
Alabama. While we were sitting there watching the movie our other friend Daniel
walked over and started to tell us how much the movie sucked. He stated that
"this is the worst movie ever made." This is a subjective claim. The
reason this is a subjective claim is because this is Daniel's personal opinion
of the movie. It is not a true claim so it is subjective. Although Daniel does
not think the movies is good. I think that it is an amazing movie. I heard an
objective claim last week when I was at the veterinarian’s office. I had to
take my dog to the vet for his yearly check up and to buy another box of
heartworm medication. While we were there the vet put my dog on the scale and
turned to me and told me that my dog weighed 238 pounds and that he had lost
five pounds since they last weighed him. This was an objective claim. This statement
was a true fact and because it was a true claim it is an objective claim and
not a subjective claim.