Reasoning from hypotheses

Reasoning from hypotheses reminds me of when I hear people talking about actors and fame. I've heard individuals say (also known for word of mouth) that when you become an actor/actress you lose your privacy as a "normal", average person and you end up losing yourself and forgetting the life you once used to have.
According to Chapter 6 in Epstein's text, reasoning from hypotheses is, "if you start with an assumption or hypothesis A that you don't know to be true and make a good statement for B, then what you have established is If A, then B" (134).
So if Vanessa tells her mom she wants to be an actress and her mom replies "Vanessa if you choose that lifestyle, you will no longer be the same you because you will get caught up in the "Hollywood" scene." Then when Vanessa states, "Mom, I will change of course, but I'll still be the same Vanessa just different." Her mom adds to that by stating, "But Vanessa, your not getting that when you become an actress, that means sacrifice of your schedule, of things and people that matter to you, your own perception will change because of your surroundings. What if some Hollywood starlet befriends you, you will definitely not be the same Vanessa I know unless you have your shoulder on right."

Vanessa's mom has not shown or proven Vanessa will not be the same girl if she becomes an actress, rather like our text says, she is showing the "assumption(hypothesis)" that Vanessa becoming an actress means she will get caught up in the "Hollywood scene" and in the moment.

The Principle of Rational Discussion

Whenever I go to a new doctor, I always hope they are well educated, have decent experience in their field of work, are patient, and care about their patients. This ties into the Principle of Rational Discussion and according to Chapter 4 in Epstein’s text, under this principle, “we assume that the other person who is discussing with us or whose arguments we are reading:
-knows about the subject under discussion
-is able and willing to reason well
-is not lying.” (60).
Like the text mentioned, “the Principle of Rational Discussion is not telling us to give other people the benefit of the doubt.” Rather, it shows us how to be able to “reason with someone.”
An example of this, (going back to when I see a new doctor or ask for a second opinion). When I was younger, close to a decade ago, I went to see a doctor on a condition and he said that surgery was my only option, and if I didn’t then this condition would always be there. He explained how this procedure would fix my problem however when I asked him questions on what is the success rate of this procedure working or if I wait in a few years, can I do it then? The reason why I asked him these questions was because truth of the matter was what I had/have CAN be fixed by surgery but it is not mandatory. What I had could indeed be fixed other ways. Both did not guarantee the issue to go away forever. The doctor also told me since I denied his request to proceed with the surgery, then do not come back unless you want the surgery. This doctor’s diagnosis was based on a quick and easy fix and did not want to discuss other options. To him the surgical procedure was simple, to me it was not. He also laid out the plan for the cost the first time I went to him. In the end, I felt we could not have a rational discussion because he was not willing to reason with me, and cared more about the quick fix. I received a second opinion, and they said that surgery could have complicated things for me more in the future and there were other ways to help get rid of the condition.

Advertisement on the Internet

WWE’s John Cena, NFL Running Back Reggie Bush, NY Yankees Derek Jeter, Tiger Woods, and Nascar driver Denny Hamlin

The advertisement I chose was the Gillette Champions for the launch of their new product (razor) Fusion Power Gamer. These five men are at their top of their game of their sport and Gillette is using them to advertise their new product. This shows how the media and public figures coinciding equals revenue increasing because just like in how Chapter 5, sections A and B in the Epstein text state on evaluating premises and the criteria for accepting or rejecting claims;
~ “We can accept a claim made by someone we know and trust who is an authority on this kind of claim
~we can accept a claim made by a reputable authority whom we can trust as an expert on this kind of claim and who has no motive to mislead
~we can accept a claim in a media outlet that’s usually reliable
~we can reject a claim that contradicts other claims we know to be true.”
These individuals are the perfect candidates to make people feel Gillette’s new razor is the way to go, to get a nice and smooth after shave because if it is good enough and works for them, it could be another individual’s new favorite razor. It may not work for everyone however Gillette is the most well known razor brand, these males especially Derek Jeter and Tiger Woods have been in other various commercials which are reliable sources, and therefore I should accept their claim.

Content Fallacies

There are many bad arguments out there in which they may contain a fallacy or fallacies.
A fallacy is when in an argument the statement is false. Getting into “content fallacies” there are different fallacies in claims that can lead to bad arguments. In accordance to our text by Epstein, one of the fallacies that I often see is the “bad appeal to common belief (or practice)” (201). This premise of this fallacy is the belief if everyone believes the statement, then it must be true, because not everyone could be wrong.

A real life example, would be how a lot of people believe that if you file your tax return on extension (past the April 15th due date), they will not be audited. This is a fallacy because people do get audited. Many years ago, however it was the common belief that if an individual files their return on extension, they were less likely to be audited. However, due to sophisticated computer systems and electronic filing, this is no longer true however many people still believe it is true

Types of Leadership

Something I found quite fascinating in the Small Group Communication book by Dan O’Hair and Mary O. Wiemann was the different types of leadership. There are four types of leadership and they include, “authoritarian, consultative, participative, and laissez-faire” (33). An authoritarian leader is someone who is in control of the group; they are the head and make the decisions and relay it back to the rest of the individuals. No one else in most cases are able to have their input in a decision or choice made. For example, one of the organizations I was a part of, we had a leader who was an authoritarian type because she was always in charge of everything our group would do and would be in charge of everything going on. However, they did ask for our opinion however in most cases, they would just relay every decision they made to the rest of us and we would just go from there.
A consultative leader is someone who values feedback and is open for comments and suggestions from other group members and then after the individuals had their input the leader makes their final decision.
A participative leader is someone who works “with other group members to achieve a desired goal. This leadership is used by leaders who work together with a group in solving a problem or performing a task” (34).
Last, but not least there’s the laissez-faire leader who is someone that “involves little or no direct leadership. The group simply proceeds with no task” (34).
I have heard of these types of leadership but never knew them in detail until now so I found the concept a helpful tool especially since it relates to small group communication.

Strong Arguments versus Valid Arguments

A strong argument according to our class textbook “Critical Thinking” by Richard L. Epstein, is defined as, “if there is some way, some possibility, for its premises to be true and its conclusion false (at the same time)…” (40). In other words a strong argument is not based on the premises of being true or false, however of how the individual presents it with facts.
An example of a strong argument would be, lets take the famous societal norm that the top schools in California are Stanford and Cal Berkeley. It is known that Stanford and Cal Berkeley are known for having the top graduates out of any college in California because not only do both schools offer the top notch of an education but they promise their high standards and expectations they have for each student, will help each individual to exceed in society and have the type of education other colleges cannot compete with nor have the capability of offering.

A valid argument according to Epstein is, “an argument in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false (at the same time)”(399). In other words, what makes an argument valid is that the premises of the argument and conclusion must both be true or accurate.
An example of a valid argument would be, in reference to the top schools in California being Stanford and Berkeley because of their high standards, and top education, that makes them to be one of the highest ranked colleges in this state. In which a lot of their graduates may become the next CEO’s of the most well known corporations in this generation and future ones to come.

Subjective and Objective Claims

A subjective claim is based in an individual’s or group’s feeling, or opinion and is not used as a basis from factual information. An example of a subjective claim would be, when I usually hear Giants fans that I know, also including myself saying how Giants are the best. That is solely based on how we feel and think, because truth of the matter is, statistically wise, Giants are not the best. There many other teams in the Major Leagues who are better than us. We just say that because we are fans of the team and feel it is necessary to say our team is the best.

An objective claim is opposite of a subjective claim. Unlike a subjective claim, an objective claim is based on facts (the truth, not a fallacy). An example of a objective claim would be the other day when my mom had told me I had left something out in our living room, and I thought I had put it away. However, actually it was still there.

Introductory Post

Happy Tuesday!

Hello there everyone! My name is Mary Lazar and I will be entering my junior(third year) at SJSU. I am a Communication Studies major with a minor in Sociology however I am new to to the Communication Studies Major.For my first close to two years in college at San Jose State, I was a business major with a concentration in Marketing, then a few months before the Spring semester ended, I decided business was not for me. I just took Comm 40 and that was what inspired me to be a Communication Studies major.
I love to talk whether it is via texting, by phone, in person, or on the internet. I also love listening too.
Since my freshman year at SJSU I have been involved in a program through our Student Health Center and Health and Wellness Promotion, PHE (Peer Health Educators) program. Through this program we educate the students and raise awareness on Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Violence Prevention, Stress, Body Image, Chronic Diseases, and Sexual Health and put on programs, presentations all for different organizations around campus as well as in classrooms. So being in this program has helped me to become a more affective speech giver, however I am still learning and hope being in this course will help me more as well.
One thing about me; I am a big San Francisco Giants fan. I have grown up around the Giants since I was a child, and my family and I, especially my dad and brother love collecting baseball memorabilia, going to signings of the players, and we love going to the games as well as watching them on T.V.
I am looking forward to this course and getting to know everyone as well.

~little miss daisy