Chapter 2 Question 3

This chapter was really interesting because it touches on so many topics that are so important to most people. God and faith, evolution, reason, emotions, technology, age, and gender are all topics that were discussed in chapter 2. One topic that really caught my attention was the Dreams and Problem Solving section. I had never previously thought of dreaming as something that expressed anything other then emotions. I felt as if fear, happiness, sadness, stress, etc would be shown in our dreams in one form or another, but not “how to fit all your furniture into your dorm room or small apartment”. This is interesting because it is showing us that our dreams have more practical uses as well. The book discussed about how our dreams can lead us to logical decisions about two things that in our conscious mind, might seem unrelated. This is something I found really interesting (and useful) as it is not something you hear everyday. It means our dreams might help us answer every day questions.

Chapter 2 Question 2

Dawkins position about evolution and God’s existent is very clear in that he believes that they are not compatible. Aquinas on the other hand believes that a lot of what is part of universe cannot be explained any other way except with the fact of Gods existence. Aquinas would probably respond to Dawkins arguments about his proofs, by stating either reasons why Dawkins arguments are also flawed or by agreeing to disagree. That is what it comes down to in these types of questions. Faith and science can both be right for different people but it can also be argued indefinitely. For myself, I believe in having faith in a sense.  I believe in bringing good to the world through my actions but that doesn’t mean I have to believe in God. However, even though I purely believe in evolution and mostly what Dawkins is saying, that does not mean both ideologies cannot both reside in our society. Compatibility maybe not, but coexisting is possible.

Chapter 2 Question 1

When choosing a career path it is important to think of your strengths and weaknesses. Doing something that I do not enjoy and struggle at, usually will lead me to switch the path I am on. I am currently a marketing major and I believe that it really plays to my strengths. I am good at math and science, but a more open ended, creative type of career has always sparked my interests. My strengths are definitely being logical and creative at the same time. The creative part of my mind helps immensely for coming up with new ideas and strategies in marketing to individuals and groups of people. With the other strength of mine, being overly logical, it helps in a business environment. I am able to think things through and keep my emotions in check, which is really important in a setting that involves people’s opinions and money, which a lot of business revolves around. My weaknesses are definitely math related. I am able to be successful in math-centered classes or jobs, but I dislike it so much that I now avoid it at all costs. Doing something you like makes all the difference.

Chapter 7 Question 3

I chose to focus on Evaluating Arguments Based on an Analogy from page 216 – 218 in Chapter 7. I picked this particular topic because I feel that the steps that are provided in the book are a great way to check on any type of argument that we might be analyzing. Followed are the steps suggested in the book.

Identify what is being compared, the book suggests that you make a summary of the items or ideas being compared.

List the similarities, a possible beneficial next stop would be to make a list of what is similar between the two items that are being compared.

Next dissimilarities, list the things about the two ideas or items that are not similar.

The next step is to compare those two lists.

As with any great critical thinker, we need to think ahead and see what counter analogies can occur.

Lastly, and naturally, we conclude whether or not the original analogy is supportive of the conclusion we were trying to confirm.

Chapter 7 Question 2

Being the US Surgeon General, Dr. Novello decided to focus on AIDS, violence, alcohol, and tobacco use. Her goal was to reduce these health issues in our nation and especially in the younger population of teenagers and children. Dr. Novello had experienced the stages of cause and effect inductive reasoning and those stages brought her to place where she felt needed to focus her work. She was concerned with the Joe Camel ads for Camel cigarettes that she had encountered. This was in her mind, the cause for the issue. The effect was that a younger population was now starting to smoke. The ads now were the cause that was persuading younger people to start smoking because they included a “cool” Joe Camel figurehead in their advertisements. Having a identifying the cause is the first step to fixing this problem. Since Dr. Novello had pin pointed a possible cause as the ads, for the increase of young smokers, there was now a starting point in trying to fix the issue.

Chapter 7 Question 1

Premise: I work as a preschool teacher.

Premise: Within the last week I elected to pick up more hours at my job.

Conclusion: Chances are that I enjoy working as a preschool teacher.

The closest inductive argument that I could think of that happened to me in the past week was work related (mostly because I am either at SJSU or my work). I jumped on the opportunity to pick up more hours at my job. Yes, the money is going to help a lot but I would have never accepted more hours if I did not like my job. Since I am a preschool teacher you either love the job or hate the job. The premises are that I work at a preschool, and also that I gladly picked up more hours at this job. The suggested conclusion is that I like my job enough to happily accept more hours since I enjoy being a preschool teacher so much.

Chapter 8 Question 3

For this weeks last post I wanted to focus on a section of “The Essential Guide to Group Communication”. A few things struck me as interesting especially during this time of working with our groups. The section I concentrated on was Factors Influencing Decision Making in Group and Teams. This section listed factors that influence the process of working as part of a group. The factors are:

Understanding the variables involved in group decision making

Developing group decision-making skills

Clarifying group value and goals

Managing group expectations

Dealing with time pressures

Working through conflict

There are also many forces that are part of working in a team as well. Cognitive forces are how a person might perceive, interpret, evaluate, store, retrieve and integrate of information. Psychological forces are personal motives, goals, attitudes, and values that the team members might have. Lastely, social forces are characterized as language use and persuasion. All these forces are present in some way when people are in groups or teams and work together.

Hair, Dan, and Mary O. Wiemann. "Leadership and Decision Making in Groups or Teams." The Essential Guide to Group Communication. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2004. 37-46. Print.

Chapter 8 Question 2

If you are a Christian and follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, then you do not support the death penalty.

Most Christians do support the death penalty.

Therefore, most Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

This deductive argument concludes that many people even if they are Christian sometimes will interpret things to fit modern dilemmas. I am not trying to make a plea to abolish or support the death penalty, but more to show that teachings that state not to “return hate for hate and evil for evil” can be interpreted by the believer and then formed into a new conclusion based on their own findings. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth can be an important part of ones findings but a decision is not limited to only those words. This scriptural passage does not prohibit the use of the death penalty necessarily. Some might take it more word for word, while others might use it as an idea, in collection with others, in making their decision in whether to support the death penalty or not.

Chapter 8 Question 1

After reading and understanding chapter 8’s points, I think that Sherlock Holmes was explaining how it is difficult to keep stories honest. Having opinions or exaggerations usually being a part of the story complicates things. He is saying that to get the facts, everything must be stripped to expose just the “framework” of the story. I believe a relative and important example that I have experienced is the issues with the presidential campaigning right now. It is really difficult to get to the source of the problem and the actual proposed solution with all the covering up of the framework. A lot of people will not go through the extra work to find out the real story so they will take the politicians word at face value. Instead of taking the “embellishments of hearsay and reports” it would be best to strip away all the frills, and get down to the original and simplest story. This would probably give the best chance at being able to understand the truth.

Chapter 6 Question 3

One of the most important ideas from the chapter I believe in how to construct an argument. Part of that construction is the step by step formula to creating an effective argument. First one must form their argument into a question that can eventually be answered. The a list of premises need to be thought about to be well educated about the argument. Next, one must address the weaknesses in the argument to then build upon the argument. A conclusion is the last primary step, however we are not finished yet. Before an argument is complete organizing and testing out an argument needs to take place and if needed a revision might need to happen. It is similar to a scientific process of hypothesis and conclusion. A testing of an argument might lead you to think the argument does not work. If it does not it is okay to revise it so that it will.

Boss, Judith A.. "Reconizing, Analyzing, and Constructing Arguments." Think: critical thinking and logic skills for everyday life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 189-191. Print.