Friday, July 15, 2011

Between one and all

Chapter 8 in our text is titled "General Claims."  Section C talks about precise and vague generalities and I found the vague generalities to be very applicable to my own life.  These are when we use words like "almost all," "very few," "some," "many," or "all."  Vague generalities might not be valid but we can use them in a strong argument.  The book uses an example about dogs barking.

"Very few dogs don't bark.
Spot is a dog.
So Spot barks."

As we can see, not all dogs bark but since a majority of them do, we can assume Spot barks since he is indeed a dog.

When I was reading this section, I immediately thought about stereotypes.  For example:

Most Asians are bad drivers.
Jim is an Asian.
So Jim is a bad driver.

Although this might indeed be a vague generality, it still isn't a strong argument because the first statement isn't necessarily true.  You must be careful when dealing with these vague generalities because unless it's a fact, people tend to over-exaggerate things.

And boom goes the dynamite,
Melvin Banner

2 comments:

  1. Hi Melvin, I enjoyed reading your full explanation on "Between One and All." You're blog is well written and it adds plenty of details to support your blog. I totally agree with your example how various stero-typing leads to a vague generality. Just because the sterotype is, "Most Asians are bad drivers and Jim is an Asian leads so Jim is a bad driver." Off the bat, it already sounds like a bad argument. We want to be able to articulate the premises with facts rather than being ambiguous. It made me realize to think twice before making a claim. Thanks for explaining things clearly, you did a great job!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Melvin,
    I think that your post is very interesting and well written. I agree with your opinion that people must be careful when stating vague claims because it can be false and it can also offend people like in the example that you stated. Also in your first example you stated that very few dogs don't bark. Next you stated that Spot is a dog so Spot barks. But since the first premise left room for some of the dogs to not be able to bark how are we to know that Spot isn't one of the few dogs that can't bark. You portrayed very clear examples that make deciphering between the two forms of claims much easier.

    ReplyDelete