Discuss one additional class concept - Bad Appeal to Common Belief

I don’t know that this concept needed additional definition or explanation, because it appears that most class members understand the concept. Instead I chose to discuss it because of its frequent use by the organizations we researched and use in our daily interaction. The concept I chose was the Bad Appeal to Common Belief. As Epstein explains “It is usually a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it” (p 97).

I found a website that appears to list everything you’d even want to know about fallacies, including this one. On this website the defined the above referenced concept as: Appeal to Widespread Belief also known as Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice.

The website explains “The claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it, or used to believe it, or do it. If the discussion is about social conventions, such as "good manners", then this is a reasonable line of argument. However, in the 1800's there was a widespread belief that bloodletting cured sickness. All of these people were not just wrong, but horribly wrong, because in fact it made people sicker. Clearly, the popularity of an idea is no guarantee that it's right. Similarly, a common justification for bribery is that "Everybody does it.”

This is a prime example for the mass hysteria that can be spread by misrepresented and uncontested propaganda: slavery, Japanese internment, the Holocaust, and more currently, refusing to vaccinate your child because of Autism related results.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Chapter 8 What I Learned & All, Some, No, Only

Chapter 8 discusses the topic of General Claims, in which Epstein explains the importance of “knowing how to reason using general claims that assert something in a general way” (p 159). What I am finding is that I have read examples of these claims in various literature, but was never able to correlate the appropriate critical thinking concept, until now.

 The first concept I found interesting was the use of All and Some. All, as defined by Epstein, “means ‘Every single one, no exceptions’. Sometimes all meant as ‘Every single one, and there is at least one”(p 160). While Some, again defined by Epstein, “means ‘ At least one’. Sometimes some is meant as ‘At least one, but not all”. Epstein better defines some as “purposely vague” and used “when we can’t or don’t want to be precise” (p 160).

When writing any essay for school I tend to use my thesaurus when I get stuck for a substitute word or a more appropriate word for the situation. Epstein states “There are lots of different ways to say “all” in English”, and listed an example of ‘Every’. Here are a few more I found using my thesaurus: every one, each and every one, every one of, and every single one. Additional alternatives for ‘Some’ are: a number of, a quantity of, a few, a little, several and various.

The second concept I found interesting was the use of No and Only. No, as defined by Epstein, “means ‘not even one’ ‘every single one is not’. Only is defined using characters to describe the sentence structure as “Only S as P” means “All P are S”.

Example for No: No children are allowed in the bar. = Not even one child is allowed in the bar. However in the example that Epstein provided, shows us the Only does not mean All. Here is my example using a substitute word. Only 40 of the 50 people invited to the party responded. Ryland was invited to the party. So Ryland responded. This is not a valid argument, because assumes that Ryland was part of the ‘only 40’ group and not the 10 who didn’t respond.

Discuss the usefulness of the first or second major course assignment

I would like to discuss the second major course assignment on Social Organizations. Our group chose the animal rights advocacy group – PETA. One of the reasons we selected this organization was because we wanted to learn more about the group’s stance, beyond the associated imagery of theatrical use of protest and controversial advertising. There were many examples of advertising in which PETA crosses the line of decency. For example in 2003 they designed several advertisements, one a publicly displayed banner, in which they tried to draw a correlation of inhumane acts by the using a side-by-side picture comparison of Holocaust prisoners in a concentration camp to chickens caged in a processing plant. As you can imagine, this advertisement drew numerous outrage from various Jewish organizations and defamation groups. In analyzing this ad it was important to be able to apply the appropriate concept discussed in Critical Thinking and describe the key indicators that were helpful in identifying the claim and relating it to the assigned artifact.

Reasoning in a Chain using the Slippery Slope

I was listening to my sister the other day talking to my nephew about drinking and driving. He wanted to attend a party with some friends, but my sister was concerned there would be drinking. She let him go to the party (with some restrictions and conditions). After he left I asked her about her obvious concerns.

Her response was something similar to “reasoning in a chain with a slippery slope”. She said that she suspected that my nephew’s friends might drink, if they drank then my nephew may be tempted to drink, if my nephew drinks he might not think clearly, if he is not thinking clearly then he will not make good decisions.

While her form of reasoning seems valid for any parent who is concerned about their child, the conditionals used on their own were weak and there was no conclusion. Or if A is true, then C is not true, because if my nephew’s friends drink then my nephew will not make good decisions. If she had started the argument with just “my nephew drinking”, and excluded "might" in the conditionals, the argument would be stronger and the conclusion of “his decisions” would be true.

Chapter 7 Counterarguments - What I Learned

Upon reading Chapter 7, I was quickly reminded of a recent debate I watched for the California Governor’s Election. Both candidates, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown, engaged the concepts talked about in the CounterArguments chapter. During the debate each: 1) raise objections and 2) refuted the argument of the other. I didn’t realize until I read the chapter of the formal step-by-step process to breaking down the argument. As Epstein summarizes, “Objections are raised: someone put forward a claim that, if true, make one of our claims false or at least doubtful. We then have to answer that challenge to sustain our argument.” More importantly to make a strong argument, all the premises must seem obvious and must support the conclusion. I believe as Esptein, that "If you can imagine someone else objecting, you can see how to give better support for doubtful premises”.

When I decided to go back to school, I made a list of pros and cons. Because I was an older returning student I had to weigh out the benefits and concerns by playing devil’s advocate to myself. I realize that there were a few family members who might oppose my decision, so I wanted to be prepared to support my decision. As it turns out everyone was very supportive. But utilizing the process of mentally debating myself with the argument, counterargument, counter-counterargument steps allowed me to be more prepared for a debate and strengthen my argument for returning to school.

Chapter 6 Compound Claims - What I Learned

A few years ago near my birthday, my boyfriend suggested “Either I will buy you a gift card to your favorite store or I will take you shopping for something you want”. Either sounded great and I figured that I would end up with birthday present purchased by him. This is an example of a compound claim. As Esptein suggests a compound claim is two or more claims that have been linked together to make one and the claim’s truth-value is dependent on the claims. However, the contradictory of this claim is “Neither I will neither buy you a gift card nor will I take you shopping for something you want”. I wasn’t aware at the time that my boyfriend HATES to shop and shopping for something I want with him wasn’t fun. We’ve learned to comprise and I just go shopping with my mom and/or friends and he pays the bill. It’s really much more fun this way.

I have some friends who have been dating for quite some time. My friend’s girlfriend wants to get married and recently issued him an ultimatum. She said, “Either we get engaged in the next 6 months or I’m breaking up with you”. I didn’t realize at the time that this was considered a false dilemma, because as Epstein explains in Critical Thinking Chapter 6, “a false dilemma is a bad use of excluding possibilities where the “or” claim is false or implausible. Espstein suggests that we should consider other possibilities besides the ones offered.

I was aware that my friend had previously indicated that he is not ready to be married and his girlfriend had made previous threats to leave. In the example above, the other possibilities would be that; my friend might leave the relationship first or his girlfriend decides to stay in the relationship unengaged.

Bad Appeal to Authority

This concept is closely related to the success of advertising on the internet. In some cases, companies will utilize a celebrity to endorse a product or practice, hoping to connect with the fans of that particular person. Many will encourage the purchasing of a product by providing supportive testimonial and sharing personal stories that may be closely related to their audience. In other cases, marketers will use so-called medical personnel (dressed in lab coats) or industry experts (in manufacturing facilities) to visually lend credibility by providing supportive research statistics and explanation of the beneficial properties of said product. If that doesn’t work, there are always the ‘sincere testimonials’ of the product users who have tried various other products, but finally found success in the advertised product or practice. Advertisers are gambling on the marketing concept of Appeal to Authority, to influence consumers into accepting the claims of these authority figures because of their status.

In addition to advertising, there are celebrities who host their own shows and who champion a cause or practice because it follows with their line of belief. The danger as Esptein explains in the definition of Bad Appeal to Common Belief is, “It is usually a mistake to accept a claim as true solely because a lot of other people believe it.” Consumers and fans may be likely to follow a practice or purchase a product, because celebrity is considered reputable and his/her guest sounds educated and well-informed. And while some endorsers do not intend to mislead or have a personal agenda or motive, their lack of questioning authority may lead to a blind-faith following of others.

QuickTrim - Internet Advertising

There are many diet products being sold on the market and through the internet that are specifically endorsed by celebrities who are idolized by young women. These companies may choose to use these celebs because of their shapely figures and visible star status, masking the questionable safety of the product.

Kim and Chloe Kardashian’s QuickTrim website is filled with claims that promote the product: “Helps Burn Calories….Supports Energy Levels and Supercharges Workouts”. However, each claim is followed with an * indicator, which direct us to a disclaimer found near the bottom of the website. It states: These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

It is not a secret that most of these diet elixirs have some pretty powerful stimulants, laxatives, and diuretics, along with a mixture of herbs (which are not regulated by the FDA), that produce quick, albeit unsafe, results.  In addition, the Federal government requires these companies to provide product label information that is truthful and not misleading, but few consumers will investigate this information. QuickTrim and others are counting on that fact that we will not research the side effects, because we are so focused on imagery and ‘supportive’ testimonials.

 In cases such as this we should suspend judgment until we can find out more about the consequences of using the product. We should question the credibility of the person endorsing the product and analyze their motives.  And we should apply related knowledge and exercise critical thinking to become  advocates of our own health.

                                                                                                                   

https://www.getquicktrim.com/?mid=808148

Repairing an Argument

When an argument is defective we can repair the argument by adding a premise or conclusion that seems to have been assumed by the person giving the argument. By adding facts or additional information to repair the argument, we follow the Principle of Rational Discussion. Therefore we only add a premise if it makes the argument stronger and is more plausible than the conclusion.

Michael is a diabetic and requires a daily insulin injection. Michael will have to take insulin for the rest of his life.  We can add a premise that provides reasoning for Michael’s condition and insulin requirement.  He has Type 1 diabetes and his body unable to produce insulin in the quantities needed to maintain a normal blood glucose level. By adding this premise, the argument becomes valid, because the premise is plausible. By explaining what type of diabetes Michael has we are able to differentiate between forms of diabetes that may be reversible by lifestyle change and diet and Michael’s type that is due to genetic predisposition.