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.
No comments:
Post a Comment