Nonsense - So YOU say!

In winter. when the fields are white
I'll sing a song for your delight.
In Spring, when things are getting green
I'll try to tell you what I mean.

In Summer, when the days are Long,
Perhaps you'll understand this song.
In Autumn, when the leaves turn brown
Take pen and ink and write it down.
.......from Lewis Caroll

What is better on a sunny day than a little nonsense?  In fact, what is better on ANY day?
Nonsense brings whimsy to a dull day and a hint of lightness into the mundane world.
Nonsense makes the monotonous bearable, and the everyday enjoyable.

Although this poem continues and expresses some rather dark and angry sentiments, the pure inventiveness transforms it into an interesting narative.

I sent a message to the fish
I told them THIS is what I wish.
The little fishes of the sea
they sent an answer back to me.
The little fishes answer was,
"we cannot do it sir, because..."

I sent to them again to say
it would be better to obey."

(This is where the tide begins to turn)

The fishes answered with a grin
"My what a temper you are in"
I told them once, I told them twice.
They would not listen to advice.

The tale goes on, there is a planned murder.  The murder is thwarted by a door:

When I found the door was locked
I kicked and screamed and pushed and knocked....
And when I found the door was SHUT,
I tried to turn the handle, but...."

And the poem ends.  Do you have days like that?  I occasionally do. 

The Peripatetic Coffee Vendor

There is a coffee vendor at work.  One of the morning's first adventures is finding out where he is stationed....Is he in the Central court?  Not today...In the Rotunda?  No...There! in the Bamboo Garden!

I have decided that he fits all definitions of Parapetic.

From ANSWERS.com:

Adjective:
1.Walking about or from place to place; traveling on foot
2. Of or relating to the philosophy or teaching methods of Aristotle, who conducted discussions while walking about in the Lyceum of ancient Athens.


Noun:
1.One who walks from place to place; an itinerant.

2.Peripatetic A follower of the philosophy of Aristotle; an Aristotelian.
 
Actually, once he settles, he's usually in one place for the day- but not always.  If you get coffee in the morning and then want an afternoon pick-me-up you may be destined to go on another adventure.
 
Should you find the vendor in a loquacious mood, you may be treated to a discussion of local signage, the need for handicapped access, the small idiosyncrasies of local ordinance or other errata - Very logical and jam-packed with information. 
 
Peripatetic.  A good word to know. And, a bright spot in the day.

Small Talk...

This area of the world is unusually cold.  I've heard some areas are hotter than usual, or more stormy.  We're just cooler.  Still, September and October are often very hot. There may be some interesting days ahead.  I relate it to global warming.  My older brother says it may be part of the normal world temperature shifts, that for the last several hundred years we have been in an unusual time because temperatures have been more stable than usual.  We may just be dropping into the usual chaos.

Small talk is an interesting concept.  Pick-up lines are one example, but those have limited use.  It generally deals with items of no great concern (thus small).  The topic does have to include points of interest, however.  It is often a way to pass time with friends.  Sometimes, it includes a 'hook' or an attention grabber meant to gain interest from a particular person.  It also serves to create a feeling of commonality when groups are forming.

I've never been good at small talk.  I tend to use conversation in a utilitarian way.  "Why mince words?"  Often, I tend to consider small talk a waste of time.  But still, I love language.  Lack of good small talk skills makes it difficult for me to integrate into groups when I don't already have an established relationship with a fair number of the people. 

I've learned that small talk serves a social purpose, and I accept that.  I recognize that small talk is a skill, and that it's one I lack.  If it's a skill, there must be a way to learn it. I look in awe at people who are good at it.  How do they find those words that just flow out so smoothly? 

More Discussion?

I believe that there are actually 2 items that warrant more class time: Analysis of advertising and Analysis of political statements. These are items that affect us daily, and that we are bombarded with. It would be helpful to have significant practice in picking them apart. Perhaps an assignment that involved a review of a political argument in the same way we looked at advertisements might help. However that is not sufficient.


Essentially, this class is an introductory class. I know it is designed to cover a broad spectrum of concepts and applications. It is impossible to work with any one item until it is truly internalized. I think the best we can hope for is to maintain awareness of the general points and some interesting examples that have been presented.

So, I say advertisements and politics – where bad arguments, contradictions, fallacies, innuendo, and strong bias NEED to be recognized for what they are.

What learned this Summer...

Over the summer, I learned a lot about the importance of vocabulary. If there is no common vocabulary, then communication is impossible.  The more the vocabulary matches, the easier the communication.  This is true at work, where people from many cultures mix and communicate every day.  We get calls from all neighborhoods, all income levels and many many ethnic backgrounds.  Language is important. And by language, I mean vocabulary. As people who work in a phone environment, we need to be able to explain things in many different ways, to find understanding with these varied populations.

My friend brought to my attention how difficult English is, with its different words that mean the same thing, words that sound the same but mean something different, and slang terminologies.  It is easy to be misunderstood - and to misunderstand.

One very good thing about this class was that it taught us a common vocabulary.  When discussing arguments, claims and conclusions, we should now all mean the same thing.  Our definition of a good argument and a bad argument and an argument not work saving should all match.  This should make communication easier.

What I Learned from the Class

Much to my surprise, I found I really like to blog. I can see how people get hooked on it and spend all their spare time reaching out through e-space.  It's quite an intriguing concept and a very interesting experience. 

I also learned that I need to be very careful not to step on toes and to hold back when I dealing with people I don't have face to face contact with, especially until a relationship is established.  I need to stifle my own feelings of 'the product will be inadequate unless I fix it'...even though it may, if I fix it, it subverts the group process.  And I think a large part of this class was the group process.

When I think of the people new to the workforce, they seem to have a totally different outlook on life than the students in this class. Part of this, I'm sure is focus.  At work, one has only the goal of work in mind (essentially) - for an extended period. While in class, it only takes up a small proportion of time, so it requires less dedication and attention. 

Examination of 2nd Paper Argument.

I had a discussion at work today with a group of 4 friends. We started talking about Cause and Effect.  I brought out my paper and read it to them.  They commented all the way through my reading.  Essentially, they had no difficulty accepting the argument. In fact, there was no real challenge to our points.  Their valid comment was that it was difficult to tell how true what we said was, because they were not looking at the website.  Very true.  For something like a website review, it's difficult to accept things at face value.  This is really a third or fourth person account of what the organization is about.  I accepted their argument and suggested they review the website. Logically, our paper hung together well.

In truth, I do not accept website reviews.  I need to see for myself.  In a way, I have the same approach to advertising claims.  This makes it very hard for me to buy on the Internet or by mail unless I am familiar with the product.  Even 'satisfaction guarenteed' is not a draw to me. I know from experience that even if I'm dissatisfied I will rarely take the trouble to ask for a refund.

Cause and Effect and the Scientific Method

Experiments and studies are often conducted to identfy causes for observed effects.  'Why does this symptom appear?' or 'Why are oranges orange?'  The problem is, it's easy to innocently create causes that are not really there.  Sometimes the identified 'cause' may be something that is present, but doesn't have anything to do with the effect you are studying. "Oranges are orange because they have lots of vitamin C.'  Well, lots of other things have lots of vitamin C but are not orange.  Look at Kiwi.
 
There are so many potential causes for so many occurrances, that assignment of cause is often difficult.  You need to look for differences.  'How are the ingredients of an orange differentent than those of a Kiwi?' or similarities 'How are the ingredients of an orange like other orange things?'

Then there's post hoc ergo propter hoc': After this, therefore because of this.  In the middle ages, scientists thought that fruit flies spontaneously generated from garbage.  How did they know this? They put fruit in a jar and closed the lid. Lo and behold, fruit flies appeared!  Proof?  The actual cause was discovered in later years.  The fruit flies had laid eggs in the fruit prior to it being placed in the jar.  Post hoc ergo proter hoc.

The Kingdom was Lost

Epstein mentioned that one must accept 'The Normal Condition" as background for any discussion of cause and effect.  Otherwise, it's difficult to tell how far back to go. This is something I haven't considered before. Most often, I'm after root cause. You see the effect, an injury.  Why did it happen? Trace that back far enough and you can do a lot of prevention.


Why was the Kingdom lost?


For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.(Gower, 1390)


So the next question is Why was there Want of a Nail? Where to stop is a judgement call.  How far back is reasonable? Epstein says "For a causal claim, the normal conditions are the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is valid and strong."  Is this string of circumstance strong and valid enough to say the country was lost because of lack of a nail?  Probably not.  Starting with the rider, he might well have been able to find another horse or another means of transport.  One the other hand, how much effect can one sholdier have?  Maybe we can't go any further back than the battle....  

"The earliest known written version of the rhyme is in John Gower's " Confesio Amantis dated approximately 1390"  http://www.rhymes.org.uk/for_want_of_a_nail.htm

Mission Critical...

I found the entire Mission Critical website very interesting.  I hope it is available to us after this class is over.  It provided a different way to look at the concepts we've covered.  I particularly liked the quizes.  They did a pretty good job of explaining why wrong answers were wrong - and they explained in less detail why the right one was right.

It was a very inclusive webiste. I found the table of contents almost overwhelming...so many choices, so little time.

The Causal argument exercise was very good. These types of things make it much easier for me to learn than reading a chapter in a book. I have some vision problems that make reading difficult, and reading from a screen even harder. However, the short amount of large text used in the exercises was excellent.

Clear definitions, separate from text are great.

"A word or phrase is said to be ambiguous if it has at least two specific meanings that make sense in context.
A word or phrase is said to be vague if its meaning is not clear in context. "

Well, Epstein is fairly good at that too.

The Group Paper Experience - Synergy - or the Lack of It

What did I learn?  I learned a lot about myself.  I found that the less response I felt from the group members, the more I tended to take over and try to do it myself. Not good. Each member of the groups I was in did participate and gave good input. However, my current experience is with a stable team, and that's different.

The experience took me back to the first group projects I worked on, and to the sense of ownership I had over my one part.  I didn't want it changed.  It was MINE! To give up control and allow changes to happen is very difficult.  But I now feel that group projects work best when there is give and take among everyone involved.  So, I can change your piece, you change mine, and we end up with a product that is better than either one of us could do alone.  Unfortunately, that's difficult to achieve unless the work group has time to develop cohesion and and group vision.

Groups have development cycles, starting with forming - getting to know one another.  From there, a storming period, where personalities and ideas clash usually occurs.  Next, progression can occur to what is called norming.  Here, the group interacts well and real working together can begin.  Finally, the group hopefully reaches the performing level.  This is where inventiveness and experimentation occur.  The team trusts each other well enough to allow true collaboration. 

So why was I surprised that these papers were so hard?

Median, Mode, Average

These are interesting concepts that I remember from my beginning statistics class. 
Median:  If you have a bunch of numers in set   (1,3,4, 3,2,5,4,2,3,4,5,3,6,3) and put them in order, you have one 1, two 2s, five 3s, three 4s, two 5s,, one 6.  How many numbers do you have? 13.  So, if you divide 13 by 2, you get 6.5.  The seventh number from the top or bottom is smack in the middle. That is the median.  The number that occurs most often (in this case, 3) is the mode.

So the average is left.  That's when you add all the numbers up and divide by the number of numbers. So let's see, added together, 1 get 48 divided by 13 = 3.69 or round up to 4.

median = 7
average = 4
mode = 3

Depending on what your're talking about, using the right one can make a lot of difference.

The Devil is in the Details

In Epstein's Chapter 13, NUMBERS, the Devil may be in concealed details, or details that aren't readily apparent. Having worked a bit with statistics, I can say that it is easy to accidently mis-lead someone by missing details. 

Over the past year, I was trying to understand why there were more calls answered than cases about the calls concerning people who move within San Jose.  There should have been about twice as many cases.  I thought there was something wrong with the query I was using to get my figures or that the Customer Service group was not entering notes as they should.

In March this year, I was finally able to talk the technical team into changing the names for the notes to make them more descriptive.  To my surprize, this seems to have fixed the problem.  Now, we have about twice as many notes having to do with moving than we have calls.  It turns out that notes were being entered, but they were in the wrong categories - so they didn't come up when I searched for moving statistics. Duh!

With statistics, you have to be sure you're measuring what you think you are.

Apple Polishing and Advertising

Apple Polishing is essentially a term meaning to give false praise in order to gain favor.  Wise Geek.com lists synonyms such a brown-nosing toadying, etc.  People who use this technique extensively are called sycophants. Their attitude is often obsequious (fawning or servile).

I remember "bring an apple for the teacher" as a phase I heard growing up.  I kept expecting to see the teacher's desk covered in apples.  Indeed, this is where the phase 'Apple Polishing' comes from (Wise Geek).

In advertising, the Apple Polishing is sometimes fairly open:  "Victoria's Secret is THE destination for chic women's clothing, sultry swimwear, must-have shoes ..."  In other words, shop here and you will be chic or sultry.  Apple Polishing is even used in product names: "Weight Watchers® Smart Ones® - Low Fat, Low Calorie and High Fiber ...Weight Watchers® Smart Ones® Low Fat, Low Calorie and High Fiber Meals has taken eating smart to a whole new level of deliciousness" .saying Eat this food and you will be a Smart One.

The use of celebrities in advertising is more of a analogy.  If you want to be like this person, use my product..but it is also a more indirect form of apple polishing, because it intimates you CAN be like the celebrity. 

Finding one advertisement to speak to seemed impossible.  Each one only seems to use apple polishing in one or two statement:  And written or on-line adverts are not primarily words. But Apple Polishing seems to be everywhere.



http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-apple-polishing-mean.htm
http://dictionary.com/
http://eatyourbest.com

Analogies and Reason

An analogy is used to paint a picture and to create the impression that two things that may not be significantly alike, are similar.  Normally, the comparison chosen is a good comparison.  Say the suggestion had been made to take apples on a picnic.  The argument might go like this:  "Let's take oranges on the picnic. Oranges are like apples, they're both fruit."  Yes, they are. But there's a reason we decided on apples.  The task of the rebutter is to find the difference between the two items that is significant to the choice.  "Oranges are messier on a picnic - and I don't have any moist towelettes."

The more unexpected and the more complex the reasoning chain, the more difficult it is to come up with an appropriate response.   Sometimes, the receiver of an analogy can be at a loss for words, sorting through all the ways the two items are alike and different. "Historical analogies are a variety of analogy often used by politicians and diplomats to explain or make a prediction about a current or future event based on events in the past. The past event is used as a source, while the present or future situation is the target of the analogy." (http://www.diplomacy.edu/language/Analogies/analogies-in-diplomacy.htm  retrieved 7/19/10)

"This is just like the time that Suzan was mad at her friend Jennifer. When Jenn tried to apologize, Sue really took advantage. You better stand your ground."  This type of analogy refers to an event in the past that might have had very different antecedents and the players may have very different characteristics.  None the less, it seems true because the memory is shared - and the circumstance may be similar on the surface. If you give the apology, will you be taken advantage of?  How alike are the situations? Does Suzan feel the same way about you that she felt about Jennifer? How important is the relationship? This requires a lot of analysis.

Appeal to Emotion: Is Reason Involved?

Just about everyone has some things they respond to positively and some things they respond to negatively on an emotional level.  Even sociopaths have some emotion. It's part of being human.  This makes it easy to be swayed by emotional arguments.

The pity we feel for the child depicted in poor and dirty conditions or for the caged, abused animal are natural and protective of our species.  If the right music is scripted behind the image, the response is stronger.  We thrive when everyone does well - and nowadays society attaches similar emotion to animals - but the appeal to emotion tells us little about the person or agency presenting it.  Only that they are willing to present the image to gain our attention, or to overcome some of the reluctance we might otherwise feel in supporting them. 

My mother is quite analytical.  In her youth, she went to some holy roller revival meetings. In spite of the fact that she was not drawn in, her eyes still shine when she talks about it.  She found them entertaining.  Others were caught up in the emotion drawn in by , the enthusiasm of the followers, the music,the miraculous healings and the general 'out of the ordinary' in the experience. Under the influence of emotion, people did things they never would have done in public including, (yes) rolling on the floor and talking in tongues.  Was what these people experienced true?  It was true for them.  Did they benefit? I do not know.

When an agency or person presents an emotional appeal, it is wise (reasonable) to ask for other arguments - unless you don't mind supporting people / agencies that may or may not actually be working toward what you really want to support.  But sometimes emotion is enough.

Drawing Diagrams - An Interesting Way to Test Validity

I like the diagrams.  I found the inclusion and exclusion circles Epstein's Critical Thinking  particularly helpful.  The concept:  Everyone included in the circle has the quality the circle is talking about.

The little cartoon of Lee and Maria on p. 167 is a good example.  The argument presented is
- Every philosophy professor reasons well (Large Circle)
- No philosophy professor is a politician. (Smaller Circle inside the Large Circle)
Therefore - No politician reasons well. (Small Circle outside the Large Circle)

But if you use that for an argument, you are saying that everyone who is not a philosophy professor does not reason well.  Although it may be true of politician, we know it's not true of EVERYONE. No, that's not true.  For that be be true, the Circle for everyone who is a philosophy professor and everyone who reasons well would be the same! So, instead you MIGHT be indicating that everyone who is not a politician. including philosophy professors, reasons well.  HA!

Maria then amends the drawing to indicate that some politicians reason well by making the politician circle overlap the Large 'Reasons Well' circle. So, some do.  I suppose, the smaller the overlap, the smaller the percentage included.

Square of Opposition

All of these TERMS!  Contradictories makes sense.  If one thing is true, the other can't be.   So when you say "Some are" or "Some are not" you do not have a contrary.  Fine, so far.  Subcontraries are different. Something is a subcontrary when there is no way that both can be false.  So, in spite of the fact that "some cats meow" and "some cats don't meow" might seem to be opposites, they aren't. so, subcontraries?   Four kinds of statements.

The essential reasoning is:  If All Cats meow, then obvously, some cats meow.  If no cats don't meow, then some cats don't meow.   If some cats don't meow, then some cats do meow.

Yes, It's confusing.

If Some cats don't meow, then all cats meow is false.
If some cats meow, then all cats don't meow is false.
This circle of reasoning was put into a square by the Aristotelians to try to make it clearer.  It did help with understanding the concepts. Putting it to practical use may be an interesting exercise.

I Have a Problem with This....

Some of the examples used both in the tutorial on mapping arguments and in Epstein's book on Critical Thinking, bother me.  For example, Epstein considers  "All dogs bark"  and "Dogs bark" to be equilivent.  I do not.  "All Dogs bark"  means every single dog barks - or it's not really a dog.  "Dogs bark" however, means that in general, dogs bark.  There may be some exceptions, but if you see a dog you can expect that it will bark.

This problem got me in to real trouble in the tutorial, where I disagreed wtih the logic of the writer on several occasions.  Burned feet at the beach were apparenly not a memory trigger for the author of the tutorial, whereas for me, they were my main memory.  Thus, hot sand is a contradictory to my desire to go to the beach. What is logical, to some extent, depends on past experience - so how arguments are framed, and what is considered an argument may vary.

How does this relate to everyday life? I run in to the same problems when someone tries to give me directions.  I find myself interrupting them "Do you mean that EVERY time I open this program I need to start with this window?"  and then I need to know why. 

So, we are having an offsite afternoon at work tomorrow, but the trip is somewhat optional.  I said i was going and then realized I would need to stay back the first half of the experience to supervise those who where staying behind.  Then, when my manager returned, I would leave and go to the event.  Well, I'm still going, so that hasn't changed.  However, I realized that I would not be there when luch was served.  And the acceptance I had given was a general acceptance.  Logically, there should be no issues.  Practically however, there would be a problem.  I have food allergies, so the lunch they were preparing for me was a special menu.  In spite of the fact that I am going, as far as the food people are concerned, I am NOT going.

5th of July!

No assigned blog this week, and a HOLIDAY!  What fun!  I get to putter around and play a bit.  I bought a new dremel device, so I'll probably begin a little sanding on one of my projects.  AND I have orchids to repot. 

Have a great day!

Counter-Arguments - Raising Objections

I had a recent run-in with the technique Epstein calls "Raising Objections" in Chapter 7 of his book Critical Thinking.

The other weekend, I hired my brother to work in my backyard.  He was doing a major overhaul, and working very hard.  He sent me inside because I was in the way.  The job as outlined was:

• Clear the weeds
• Put down 2 layers of gold fill
• Fix the stairs
• Trim the overflow of my neighbors jasmine (i.e., it comes over fence onto my side.  I had already begun trimming the jasmine and asked him to finish the job.)

This was easily a weekend of work. 

I went out a lunchtime the first day to offer him a meal and see how far he had gotten.  Much to my horror, he had trimmed the jasmine not the way I had started, but clear back to the fenceline.  It had lost it's hold and was falling over into my neighbors yard.

His argument, 

• You told me to trim the jasmine and you did not specify that I trim it in the same way you did.

My counter-argument,

• I told you I had already done part of the job and you could easily see how it had been done.

His argument,

• You did not say that you were done with the area you had worked on. 
• Besides, you have the right to trim it back to the fence line.  If it falls over, that's the neighbors concern.  They can prop it up if they like.

My counter-argument,

• Having the right to trim it to the fence does not mean I want to do it.  I like it coming over the fence a little
• Besides, I do not want to irritate my neighbors.

His argument,

• But your yard looks much bigger without it coming over, and it looks messy with it coming over all uneven.
• Besides, it's already done and it will grow back.

In case it's not clear by now, although I love my brother, he and I have very different tastes.  He loves symetry and straight, square lines.  I love asymetry and a little visual variety.  His thinking is also very straight.  If it's your right and you act on it, no-one should object. And he is not worried about my neighbors.

At the end of the weekend I decided he had the stronger argument.  It was done. The yard looked bigger.  The weeds were gone.  The stairs were fixed.  The vine would grow back.  I was dealing primarily with a difference in artistic taste.(and a desire to maintain harmony by informing the neighbors before going so far with any trimming).  Everything else that he had molded into his vision was easily changed into something I liked.  And the stairs are GOOD!

Necessary Conditions

In Chapter 6 of his book on critical thinking, Epstein (2006) reminded me strongly of my geometry class.  It was based on postulates and the proving or disproving of mathematical (geometrical) arguments.  The real basics, If A then B/ If not A then B / If not A then not B  etc, etc.  I found the class very interesting.  It was probably the first math class that really made sense to me.  I've heard the saying "Mathematics doesn't involve understanding, just memorization".  I don't work well in that mode.  It probably why I didn't do too well at memorizing the times tables but did do well in statistics.

The concept that was interesting to me was called "Necessary and sufficient conditions" by Epstein.  This is slightly different from the basis If "A then B". If A then B doesn't necessarily mean that for every B an A has to occur;  only that for every A, a B has to occur.

For both A and B to be totally linked (can't have one without the other), then the statement is If A then B and if not A then not B - a compound conditional.  sort of like -  The first bit "If I buy oranges then I will have oranges to eat " yes, but I may be able to eat orages anyway because I have some in my fruitbowl. "If I buy oranges then I will have oranges to eat and if I don't buy oranges I will not have oranges to eat." This make it necessary for me to buy the oranges in order to eat them.  I have no other source.

To Accept or Reject?

Epstein, in his book on Critical Thinking (2006) lists criteria for acceptance or rejection of claims.  "Our most reliable source of information about the world" he says, "is our own experience."  From the base of personal experience, we can first determine if we know the claim is true or false.  The difficulty with this is to truly determine what is personal experience and what we have completely accepted because someone else in our past told us so.  This is particularly true with what we have been told as children.  These ideas become ingrained and we tend to see what happens to us from the viewpoint of those ideas.  We place meaning where meaning may not exist.

Every now and then it's helpful to examine where the certainty came from.  "I know it's true" may not be enough.  By listening to different viewpoints, we can expand our vision and rediscover experience.

One of the most inaccurate testimonies in court is eye-witness testimony yet juries place great value on it.   A transcription of of a talk by Tversky and Fischer (law professors at Stanford) relates several studies.  Among them were studies that demonstrated false memory. One study involved asking participats about a stop sign when the sign had actually been a yield sign.  The participants became convinced that it had been a stop sign. 

Memory is fallible, and we need to keep that in mind.  Our own experience is still the best teacher.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm Retrived 6/26/2010

Internet Ads - Unstated Argument

This ad displays very little information. The visual juxtaposition of the tree shadow and the column are startling. They grab attention. This ad is designed to get the viewer first to examine the ad in detail and then to deeply consider the need for resource conservation. In this case, there is a particular desire to save trees. It may be an anti-logging ad, but if this were so I’d expect a different type of tree in the image – perhaps a redwood. Use of the palm shows a more general sentiment.

Is there a truth in this advertising? Here, the image portrays the message. Nothing CAN replace a tree. See? This post we erected does not do it. Neither can anything else.

The way one evaluates this ad depends on their initial point of view. Anyone who strongly feels that conservationists are alarmists may be captivated by the image, but will probably be more amused than convinced. This ad is aimed at catching the already convinced and bolstering their commitment. It may also be aimed at those who are undecided, hoping to pique their interest and encourage more involvement in the conservation cause.

Content Fallacies

A content Fallacy creates an argument that is dubious (doubtful) because the basic premise cannot be trusted. Some are generalities. Often they include words like "always" "anything" or "everyone". Others may be based on creating false choices "It's the devil or the deep blue sea" when there may be other choices, such as my friends on dry land. Others create false reasoning for someone's actions attributing the cause of action to a group the actor belongs to or a position the person holds. Some make their argument based on false emotional chains "You should follow the rules because you believe in order." Well, I may like things neat, but I also choose to break a few rules now and then.

I think the Fallacy that bothers me the most is called "Mistaking the person (group) for the argument" by Epstein in his book Critical Thinking (2006). This fallacy is based on generalization, not only of group members but of the group's viewpoints - or the person's stand on an issue with his or her approach to other matters. "Carol says yoga is good because she's a Buddhist." In fact, although yoga may be done by some Buddhist sects regularly, there are many that don't do it at all. And in some sects that don't practice yoga, there are individuals who may practice hatha yoga (yoga for health). In a similar manner, the argument may be “Susan is a Republican. Republicans are against abortion - so Susan must be a Right to Lifer.” Maybe, maybe not. But you cannot assume that the group determines belief.
Statements based on this fallacy are rarely correct about groups and even more rarely about how individuals see the world.

Interesting, Interesting....

I found the concept of "Violating the Principle of Rational Discussion"(Epstein, 2006) very interesting. My interest was piqued because it gave words to issues I've had with may polical statements and with commercial ads over the years. There are four violations listed:
> BEGGING THE QUESTION: Aimed at convincing the audience that you are speaking truth. In order to do this, you have to have fairly reasonable premises that lead to a conclusion not quite so reasonable. For example: 'I'm for clean air and water' (two things you support)- leading to the conclusion, you should vote for me in spite of the fact I'm also for eminent domain and weaponizing space (two things you don't support).
> STRAWMAN: Knocking down another argument by mis-stating what they said. What was actually said was "I cannot support libraries at the expense of public safety" could be stated as "My opponent does not support public libraries."
> SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: It's easier to ask for a disproof of a claim than to prove them yourself. "Man is descended from extra-terrestrials. You don't believe me? Prove I'm wrong." This one is really difficult. Unlikely as it may seem, how could you prove it wrong?
> RELEVANCE: Arguments that don't relate to the conclusion - "I worked all day, I skipped lunch, so we should go to the movies."???? There is no reply to this type of argument. It makes no sense, at least in the way it's stated. It's possible there are some unspoken relevant points, but as the receiver, you have no way of knowing what they are.

Strong and Valid Argument

I'm in a Collaborative Inquiry group. There are 9 of us. So far, we've all worked in harmony. This group is beginning to be highly productive. Today one question was brought forward. There is a member who has missed two sessions and is planning to miss two more as he will be out of town. Should we allow him to continue in the group? This is a highly emotional subject. The subject of our inquiry is about stress, and we are thinking of adding to the stress of this one delinquent member.

H said "He adds a lot to the group. He's always funny and breaks the tension. I like having him here." B said "I like him too, and he really needs our support right now". D said, "I don't know him outside the group, but it's one of our norms (rules decided on by the group) that you can only miss two sessions."

The weak argument was "He adds a lot to the group". So far, he's missed half the meetings. If he's not there, he can't add to the group, so it is invalid as well.

The strong argument was " It's one of our norms that you can only miss two sessions" and he would be gone for four. This was also valid. It would break our accepted norm behavior to allow him to continue.

We had some discussion about how group membership changes dynamics, and how much the group had changed just within the two sessions already missed. One of his co-wokers metioned that he generally had too much to do that the committment to work outside of group time was another pressure. The decision maker was the strong and valid argument - we made the rule and should not break it unless there was strong agrument to do so. And there was no strong argument. We came to consensus.

Subjective and Objective Claims

Use an example from outside of the classroom. Discuss Subjective and Objective Claims. Give an example of a Subjective Claim you have heard or used recently AND give an example of an Objective Claim you have heard or used recently. Describe the situation. Describe the claims in detail.

I was on the phone, speaking with my brother, CD and his wife, RG planning a weekend visit. RG said they would come here to go mattress shopping and attend a drawing marathon at the local Community Center. I suggested inviting my other brother, JA and his family over for dinner on Saturday night. I said "That would mean 2 young girls in my tiny house, but we can have a barbeque outside"

RG said that if we invited them over, she would feel obliged to provide entertainment, as that is her livelihood. I said she didn't need to do that. The parents would keep a close eye on them. RG countered "Then we'll have a couple of screaming kids running around'" She said that the only way to avoid this outcome was for her to entertain = and she was not enthusiastic. " Those parents don't let their children scream for very long", I said.

Subjective: "Then we'll have a couple of screaming kids running around".
This was a feeling and expectation stated as fact. Her experience with these particular children was minimal, and occurred more than a year ago when they were substantially more immature. However, she has extensive experience with young children in general and has formed a vision of what would occur - she has a strong argument.

Objective: "That would mean 2 young girls in my tiny house, but we can have a barbeque outside."
This was objective, it is true or false. Yes, there would be 2 young girls and yes, we could have a barbeque outside.

Both Claims have truth value. The Subjective claim has value to RG. It is based on her experience. She is sure it is true. I'm not so sure. It does not jibe with what I have recently seen of these particular children when their parents are around.

The Objective Claim is has general truth value. My house is tiny. There are 2 young girls. We can have a barbeque outside. Well, the "my house is tiny" is subjective.

Introduction

What's important in an introduction?

First, let me say that Myoho means Mystic. I chose the name not because I am a mystic. but because I believe it is important to remain aware of how mysterious life is. When you think about the little blobs of protien and chemicals that make us up, it truly is miraculous that we can move and develop.

My experience in communication is primarily based in communicating facts. I need to create documents and presentations where the content is king. As you may be able to tell, this is not a direction I take without some effort. I love to embelish. I love words - the sounds, the varied meanings, the derivations.

My background includes training and experience in Occupational Therapy, Human Factors, Ergonomics and Project Management. Currently I'm working as an Analyst with some project management. Far from the mystic, you might say. However I find mystery every day in life's little experiences.

A few years ago (maybe 10) I took up drawing and painting. Much to my surprize, I was good at it. Drawing is a very mystical experience - especially drawing plants. After a drawing session, the way I see the world is transformed. Everything is sharper, clearer. Color is more intense. Focus is cleaner. It's a kick!

A Momentary State of Existence

As we move through daily life, we pass through innumerable momentary states. My eyes are tired. I enjoy that. Ow! Stubbed my toe! That kiss is bliss.

As a human, it is impossible to maintain a steady state. Yet variety truly is the spice in life. How boring to have no change, no challenge, no critical decisions to make.