False Dilemma

Chapter six from our text, Critical Thinking is entitled “Compound Claims.”  One of the interesting concepts it discusses is that of a false dilemma.  Our book defines a false dilemma as, “a bad use of excluding possibilities where the ‘or’ claim is false or implausible.  Sometimes just the dubious ‘or’ claim itself is called a ‘false dilemma.’”  In other words, somebody gives another person only two options and makes it seem like those are the ONLY two options when in reality there are multiple other possibilities. 

            I’ve experienced people attempting to give me these ultimatum sorts of claims many times in my life.  My favorite I’ve ever heard was by my ex-girlfriend.  One of my best friends accidently urinated on my wall, books, and some clothes late one night.  The next morning my girlfriend was furious with me for still being his friend.  She went off about how I needed to stop letting people walk all over me in my life and that I had to either stop being his friend, or I had to at least act angry towards him.  Although it is a valid argument with two probable responses, this is still a false dilemma because there are many other options that she didn’t consider.  For her, forgiving my friend wasn’t a possibility that she purposed to me.  Luckily, I knew my ex-girlfriend’s claim was dubious and I was able to simply forgive my best friend and the whole situation became something we still laugh about to this day.  

Innuendo

An innuendo is a claim that is disguised so the reader will have to assume what the true claim is.  The claim is usually concealed due to its usually vulgar or unpleasant content.  Innuendos allows writers to talk about things that wouldn't normally be accepted.  For example: Before any sexual context was allowed to be shown on television and in the theatre, writers would use sexual innuendos so that the viewer wouldn't actually see anything sexual, but would still know when something sexual happened.  Writers have a lot of fun with innuendos because some of the innuendos require a bit of intelligence, and if the veiwer isn't paying close enough attention, they might miss it.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Advertizing On The Internet

Chapter 5 "Is That True" in the book Critical Thinking talks about evaluationg the premise, the criteria for accepting or rejecting the claim, and advertizing on the internet.  The most annoying types of advertizing i've seen on the internet is the pop-up games, where all you have to do to win something is complete a simple task like "Out Drink The Frat Boy."  Advertizements like this are just tricks to get people to go to their webpage by forcing the person to click the link.  I learned that these types of advertizements are almost always phony.  Many advertizements only get their money from how many people visit their page, so by tricking a web surfer into clicking the link, they will recieve money.

People often fill in the blanks and assume things when they are read. For example, after reading that ad your brain probably processed that if you beat the frat boy in drinking, then they will give you a free Nintento Wii.  On closer inspection however, nothing besides spatial relations connects the two statements.  It doesn't say "If you win, you get a free Wii." The premise and the claim of the ad's argument are weak and we can not accept them.  These types of ads are sketchy and unreliable.  I know this from personal experience because i one spent over an hour trying to find out how to recieve my prize,  but it was impossible.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion

Chapter 11 "A summary of bad arguments" in the book Critical Thinking, talks about the different fallacies we see in arguments.  The book defines a fallacy as, "a bad argument of one of the types that have been agreed to be typically unrepairable."  One of the fallacies that i am very familiar with is the appeal to emotion.  For an argument, the concluding claim should not be a descritpive claim relating to emotions.  Emotions are subjective and make for weak factual arguments.  An example of this fallacy would be the good ol' saying, "Drink your sorrows away."  The quote means that if somebody is sad about something, then they should just get drunk to make it feel better.  Because it appeals to somebody's emotions, this statement is clearly a fallacy.  On top of that, we already know that drinking doesn't solve anything so we know that this is a bad argument.

And boom goes the dynamite,

Melvin Banner

Strong Vs. Valid Argument

The art of an argument.  Occupations such as lawyers and lobbiests rely on the skill of arguing to do their jobs.  There are two different types of arguments: strong and valid.  A strong argument is when the evidence is very convincing but the conclusion might not necessarily be true.  In a valid argument, the conclusion is always undeniable so the strength of the argument comes from the facts.

A lawyer that is in defense of a murder suspect would use a strong argument to fight the case.  Because it is unknown whether the defendent is the actual murderer or not, the evidence used to support the argument must be strong enough to convince the jury of his innocence.  "The defendent was visiting his grandma in the hospital, so therefore he could not have murdered the victim who was over 50 miles away."Although it is a good argument, there are still ways the defendent could have committed the crime.

Now lets say that the defendent was still found guilty.  Somebody viewing this hearing could make a valid argument by saying, "Looks like he's going to be locked up for at least a quarter century."  This is a valid argument because the minimum prision sentence for somebody convicted of murder is 25 years.  The sentence can be extend however, for the rest of the convict's life.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Subjective and Objective Claims

Subjective and objective claims are complete opposite of each other.  While objective claims can be defined as factual information, subjective claims can be looked at as argumental topics that different people can have different opinions about.  Coincidentally, about an hour ago my brother exclaimed that Samual Adams Boston lager is the best beer in the world.  Taking the opportunity to argue, I explained to him that the best beer is actually Blue Moon for its smooth texture and unique taste.  Technically, neither of us were wrong because deciding which beer is truly the best is a desicion based off opinions and opinions can not be 100% proven as facts.  There is no true way of telling which beer is better which makes it a subjective claim.  Shortly after our subjecive discussion, my brother made an objective claim by saying that the propane tank for the BBQ was out of gas.  (This was a problem considering we were only half way through grilling up some burgers and hot dogs haha.)  Objective claims are topics that can not be argued because it has factual information to back up the claim.  The meter on the propane tank read empty, so clearly my brother's claim was undeniably true.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

Introductory Post

Hello class mates.  My alias name is Melvin Banner and I am a simple person who tries to live the phrase carpe diem.  I would give everything for my friends and family.  Previous to this class I have taken a comm 20 class which is public speaking.  My major is psychology and I am hoping to one day become a therapist to help others "seize the day."  People tell me that I think differently than most and I just tell them it is because I am overly logical =].  I don't let things bother me because I believe that everything happens for a reason.  I am a hardcore believer in karma so when people do shady things to me, I feel sorry for them.  I am very excited to get to know everyone this summer!

-Melvin Banner