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.