What we would like you to do is to
find a topic from this week's chapter that you were interested in and search
the internet for material on that topic.
Please be sure to use at least 3
quality resources. If you use videos, please limit it to one video.
Once you have completed your search
and explorations we would like you to:
1a) State what your topic is.
1b) Discuss how the topic relates to the chapter.
1c) Discuss why you are interested in it.
2) Next, we would like you to take
the information you read or viewed related to your topic, integrate/synthesize
it, and then write about the topic in a knowledgeable manner. By
integrating/synthesizing we mean taking what your read/experienced from the
internet search organize the information into the main themes, issues, info,
examples, etc. about your topic and then write about the topic in your own
words using the information you have about the topic.
3) At the end of your post, please
include working URLs for the three websites. For each
URL you have listed indicate why you chose the site and the extent to which it
contributed to your post.
1a) For this week’s topical blog I decided to do a bit more research on comparing and contrasting inductive and deductive reasoning.
1b) This chapter is all about concept formation, logic, and decision making. Logic deals with the science of thinking and how we come to conclusions. These two different types of techniques both deal with logic and help us form conclusions which often later decide our actions. The book provides clear definitions on each type and give good examples to.
1c) I am interested in studying more on this topic because even though the book provides a lot of good information on the subject, they do not do a very good job actually giving side by side comparisons of the two. I wanted to take what I have learned from the book and expand on it seeing what is actually so different between the two.
2) Deductive and Inductive reasoning are two ways of forming logical conclusions, but the way they go about this is completely opposite from each other. Deductive reasoning starts with a general statement or hypothesis. It is also known as the top-down approach because the researcher starts at the top with a very broad set of information and they work their way down to a specific conclusion. This original statement also known as a premise, are assumed to be true and the substantial premises that are made following are also assumed to be true. An example of an original premise might be a theory about a topic of interest and from there you narrow it down into more specific hypotheses that can be tested and observed and this ultimately leads the researcher to be able to test the hypothesis with specific data. After this is done they are able to confirm or reject the original theory and form a conclusion. With deduction you can provide absolute proof of your conclusions, given that your premises are correct, however the original premise itself can never be proven they must be accepted on face value, by faith, or for the purpose of exploration.
In inductive reasoning we move from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. This is known as the bottom up approach because it begins with specific observations and measures but then starts to detect patterns from which we formulate a tentative hypotheses to explore which ends up developing into a conclusion. Even when all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false and a lot of times different alternative theories arise that is supported by data.
The easiest way to understand each of these approaches is by using examples. With deductive make an observation and connect it to something. I wake up at 8, get ready in ten minutes, and am ready for class on time. In inductive start with the big picture and break it down smaller: I arrived to class on time, I got ready in ten minutes, I woke up at 8 therefore if I wake up every day at 8 I will be on time. However this leaves room for error because you never know when something is going to disrupt this making a premise false.
All in all inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory where deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm a hypothesis. Most research uses a combination of the two and scientific logic often alternates a lot between the two.
3)http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
This website was beneficial because it provided very clear definitions of both deductive and inductive reasoning. It also provided several different examples that were used to show a clear difference, it explained each of their role’s in the scientific method, and it explained a bit more on syllogism and abductive reasoning.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/Deductive-Reasoning-Versus-Inductive-Reasoning.htm
This website was useful in providing clear definitions which elaborated more on the ideas that each are top-down/bottom up approaches. They explained how theories can be derived using them. Also once again they provided clear and easy examples which made it easier to understand. Finally this website was useful in providing how these things are used in actual practice.
http://ocw.usu.edu/English/introduction-to-writing-academic-prose/inductive-and-deductive-reasoning.html
This website was beneficial because it explained more about how we can decide whether or not each premise is true or logical. IT provided good examples of each and also clear definitions.
Topical Blog Chapter 13
My topic for this week’s topical blog is deductive reasoning versus inductive reasoning. I am interested in this topic because I do not know the differences and similarities between these two types of reasoning. I would like to dig deeper into understanding what each reasoning is and how these concepts help in our everyday thinking.
The introduction to deductive reasoning begins on page 379 of our textbook through page 386 while inductive reasoning begins on page 387 through about page 392 of our textbook. Our textbook outlines different ways that conclusions to a situation can be indicated through these types of reasoning. The textbook also discusses numerous concepts related to deductive and inductive reasoning that help determine how to follow through with decision making.
First, deductive reasoning is a form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a generalized statement or hypothesis to help determine the possibilities to reach a logical conclusion. Deductive reasoning is typically used to test theories. Syllogism is used in deductive reasoning. This is when something is true of a general class of things, it is also true for all the members of that class. Syllogism helps come to a conclusion that is logical and true. However, if the generalization is not true, the conclusion may be logical, but may also be untrue. For example: “All Republicans are human. All Democrats are human. Therefore, all Republicans are Democrats.” The conclusion that all Republicans are Democrats is logical, however this is untrue.
On the other hand, inductive reasoning is opposite. Inductive reasoning also makes generalizations; however, these generalizations are made based on specific observations. Inductive reasoning allows for a conclusion to be false even if all the premises are true in a statement. The scientific method is used within inductive reasoning. The scientific method is more broadly used in inductive reasoning in order to form theories.
The major difference between deductive and inductive reasoning comes from the relationship the author of the argument takes between the generalized statements (premises) and the conclusion. If the author thinks that the truth of the premises establishes the truth of the conclusion then the argument is deductive. However, if the author does not think that the truth of the premises establishes the truth of the conclusion then the argument is inductive. Overall, a bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.
Largely, “if-then” statements are used in deductive reasoning to test hypotheses. When a cause cannot be directly observed, deductive reasoning is used and only the consequences can be observed. Deduction begins with general statements and ends with specific details. Therefore, deductive reasoning is more of a bottom-up processing.
Generally, inductive reasoning is used if you have to build up to an understanding of how something works. Induction begins with specific details and ends with general statements. Therefore, inductive reasoning is more of a top-down processing. Both types of reasoning are widely accepted. Arguments that are based on experience or observation are looked at inductively while arguments based on laws and rules are looked at deductively.
http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
This website discussed the major differences between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. The website also spelled out the use of syllogism used within deductive reasoning. Last, the website briefly touched on similarities between the two types of reasoning.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
This website explained the major difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. This website built on the information from the first website by clarifying the differences and providing examples for understanding the major difference.
http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm
This website discussed deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning in terms of bottom-up and top-down processing. It explained that both types of reasoning are widely accepted. However, it depends on the situation in order to determine which type of reasoning is more likely to be used.
1a)--Straw Man Argument & ad hominem
1b)--It relates to the chapter because it is a ploy used often when trying to sway an opinion or alter someone’s decision making. It is a logical fallacy because the argument becomes not about the facts but about the ability of one party to alter and manipulate the opposing argument in order to gain favor for themselves. Ad hominem is a similar tactic where an arguer completely ignores their opponent’s viewpoint and simply attacks the persons physical characteristics.
1c)--I am interested in the straw man argument because I’ve always been interested in the science of debate and how people are able to spin fact and fiction in order to convince people to side with the weaker viewpoint. I am also rather interested in politics and straw man arguments are seen every day in that realm, which to me unfortunately adds to the confusion and lack of informed citizens in the U.S. Fortunately, ad hominem arguments are less common politically because they completely ignore all fact, but they are still seen as well.
2)--People who utilize the straw man argument do not care about following the unwritten rules of debate but simply about having the “appearance” of gaining the upper-hand. Straw man is used when someone knows they are going up against an opponent whose viewpoint has very strong evidence to support it and is likely to win a rational argument of facts. So the straw man reframes and exaggerates their opponent’s position, often exaggerating and misrepresenting the contrasting argument to make it appear much weaker than it actually is, giving added credence to their own belief.
The GOP has been very critical of Barack Obama’s use of straw man arguments to enhance the appearance of his stance on issues. It often involves the use of stereotypes to assume all people of a group hold the same viewpoint, “Republicans don’t want to keep funding social security” for example. This statement attempts to gain benevolence from those in favor of social security by saying that all Republicans are against it, which is not true. Obama works to “take his opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme, and then attack the extremists [not the real opponent]”
On the reverse side, many of the right-wing pundits and some politicians have used ad hominem arguments against Barack Obama since years before he was elected. He routinely has been painted as a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein, he was painted as un-patriotic because his former pastor made critical comments about the United States. In fact ad hominem attacks on Obama area likely more than any other previous president has had to deal with because of the fact that he is the first non-white president.
All in all, these logical fallacies (straw man and ad hominem) are both techniques which can be used to reduce an opponent’s credibility or approval. They are used by todays greatest debaters and arguers (politicians) to skew the facts and gain political favor. It is unfortunate that politics are not more fact based, but as along as these techniques work, they will continue to be utilized. As long as people can distract their audience into thinking less about the facts and more about their emotions, logical fallacies are here to stay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o This video sets up a very good overview of just what exactly the Straw Man Argument is and who uses it when. Provides the basics of the fallacy and who utilizes it and why.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/politics/24straw.html?_r=0 This New York Times article outlines some of the straw man arguments Obama has made in his tenure in office and explains how they are flawed.
http://www.tguar.com/diary/4136/rush-limbaugh-obama-ad-hominem-ad-nauseum This article details many of the ad hominem arguments used against Obama since he ran for president.
This week I was interested in researching ad hominem arguments. They caught my eye in the chapter because it seems like the type of defense we often see in our culture. However, even thought I immediately recognized what type of argument style the chapter was referring to, I had never realized there was a name for it. This prompted me to do more research on what else I may not have known about the topic.
Ad hominem literally translates from Latin to English meaning “against the man” or “against the person”. These types of arguments have nothing to do with actual logic of the topic at hand. They are intended to attack “against the person” making the argumenet, stating information in regards to the person’s character or something similar rather than the actual debate at hand.
There are many different forms of ad hominem arguments. These include abusive types, circumstantial types, tu quoque types, and guilt by association types. Abusive types are intended to directly attack traits and qualities of the person making the argument. This is supposed to make their argument less valid, no matter what the logic of the argument at hand is. The circumstantial type is one where, for example, someone who has never been married gives marriage advice. No matter how valid their advice is they may be told their points are invalid because they’ve never been married. Tu quoque means “you also” and the argument used is to infer that the opponents point is invalid because they’re being hypocritical. Even if the opponent is being hypocritical, that doesn’t directly state if their argument is actually truthful or not. The guilt by association type attempts to invalidate the person’s argument by stating that they’re associated with someone with different views, therefore your views must not be valid either.
There are also many different scenarios these different types of ad hominem arguments can be used in. The most obvious ones are in politics and in court. I feel like we see these arguments used in politics often. It’s not uncommon to see a commercial talking about a politician and how they’re associated with something negative or how they’ve said or done something hypocritcal. Other politicians will then take that information and use it to make the opponents points seem less valid, regardless of what the opponents real intentions were. Other examples where these arguments can be used are against people making statements of a religious group different than their own, teachers who went to a university that a parent sees as less prestigious and uses it to reflect on the teacher’s quality, using someone’s ethnicity as a reason for them to not have valid points on information about other nations, or simply responding in any debate with an attack on someone’s personal beliefs. There are other countless ways ad hominem arguments could still be used as well.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
I liked this link because it gave me a brief and simple explanation of what my topic was and an easily understood example. This helped with my post because I was able to have a base understanding of the topic as I looked into more information to help me write an understandable and informed post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I liked this link because it thoroughly described many different types of ad hominem arguments. This contributed directly to my post by helping me be able to mention the different types and go into more detail of what these types of arguments can look like.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/reference/examples/ad-hominem-examples.html
I liked this link because it gave me specific examples of scenarios where ad hominem arguments may be used. This helped with my post by giving me an understanding of what some of these specific circumstances looked like and I was able to mention some of them in my writing.
1) This week for my topical blog I am going to look farther in the Inductive reasoning versus deductive reasoning. These two reasoning’s have been mentioned briefly in our text book separately but I often found myself getting confused and mixing the two together even though they are different. I wanted to look farther into the two topics because they are often talked about one at a time but they are very closely related and they have many similarities but also have many differences. I would like to look into each one and compare the similarities and the differences between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
2) First let’s look at deductive reasoning, is a basic form of validating reason. Deductive reasoning starts out with a basic statement or hypothesis that examines the possibility to reach a specific conclusion. Whereas Inductive reasoning is the complete opposite, it is when broad generalizations are made based on basic observations. Inductive reasoning is often used in a scientific way to build hypothesis and theories, and deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations. Deductive reasoning is often used by scientists when they start with general information and make it more specific information. Inductive reasoning is working the opposite way of deductive reasoning in working with more specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. The researchers go from a specific observation and they explore and develop hypothesis and finally develop conclusions of the theory. Deductive reasoning is often seen as more narrow research and is generally used to test or confirm a hypothesis. Whereas inductive reasoning often is used to develop the hypothesis and theories. As I have gone through and learned more about each form of reasoning it made me think more about how we are actually developing reason. It really is using both forms of reasoning to develop and confirm any type of theories and hypothesis. When we think of a hypothesis and start to do research we are going through inductive reasoning as we gather the information and prove the theory. After the hypothesis has research behind it is then able to go through deductive reasoning and make sure that all of the information is correct. This helps to show the accuracy to the reasoning behind the new theory that has been proven or shown as a incorrect hypothesis. I think that this will help when looking at
http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html this website helped me to better understand and have a better understanding of the definition of inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning and how they are used in research. It also showed very clear examples for each form of reasoning which help to better understand the research and each form of reasoning’s part side by side.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/Deductive-Reasoning-Versus-Inductive-Reasoning.htm this website gave me more information about how each form of reasoning is used in scientific studies. This website helped me to better understand what each form of reasoning is used for. This website gave really good examples and showed how it could be used in everyday research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning this website gave me more of the same information but really went into further detail of each form of reasoning and what we personally can use it for when developing a hypothesis. This website also gave a lot of information about the history and different forms and examples of each form of reasoning.
1a) State what your topic is.
Ad hominem.
1b) Discuss how the topic relates to the chapter.
The ad hominem was discussed in the chapter under the section ad hominem arguments. While most of the chapter dealt with logic and reasoning ad hominem arguments are usually the exact opposite.
1c) Discuss why you are interested in it.
This topic interested me because it reminded me so much of the bickering and squabbling many politicians do around election times every year. Usually many political debate start in good nature and actually discuss important and pressing issues. The problem arises usually when someone is unprepared for a subject or has no knowledge of the area and decides to attack the other person based on their moral character or another irrelevant point. Luckily reviewers of professional manners like promotion boards, book reviewers or manuscript reviewers are cautioned to avoid ad hominem arguments in their evaluations. As the book states, it is more effective to attack the idea, not the person, this is of course a good policy in everyday life.
2) An ad hominem is a general category of misconceptions in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Ad hominem arguments work through a cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, like treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. As many of us know people in general are very judgmental, people tend to be all good or all bad. In politics or any debate for that matter if you can point a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality and legitimacy of your opponent's arguments. While we do see ad hominem attacks in politics, they are hardly ever used plainly, and individuals who do use ad hominem arguments are generally those who want to provoke a fight. Those using ad hominem arguments are using arguments that make no sense, and have never been heard of, or mock their opponent when they fail to find a rebuttal. The four basic forms of ad hominem arguments are abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque and guilt by association. Abusive arguments are usually aimed at the speaker’s character or morals, circumstantial arguments point out that someone is in their situation must take a take a particular position, and they attack on the bias of a source. Tu quoque arguments claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument, like when your parents tell you not to drink because it could be harmful but they either do or did drink. Finally guilt by association attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument. Ad hominem arguments can be effective in making your opponent look bad, but most of the time it only make the individual making the claims look ignorant.
3)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
This site was explained an ad hominem argument in rational terms that were easy to understand. It gave information as to when they are used and how ridiculous they can be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
This site was very descriptive with all the different forms of ad hominem arguments and explained each in good detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD50OTR3arY
This video explains ad hominem arguments in a more colorful and fun way than reading about each individually.
I chose to do my topic this week on how to detect a liar. I found the small section in the text about whether prisoners are expert liars really interesting and I think researching it better would be helpful to my own life. I love learning about body language and how to read it correctly and I also find it very useful to know because I work in a residential treatment facility (PMIC unit) which requires me to decide if my kids are telling me the truth or not multiple times a day.
There are many things to look for when trying to decide if someone is lying to you. I think one important thing that can really help you is if you have some sort of baseline to compare it to. If you know the person you are talking to you will have already had normal interactions with them. If you have reason to believe they may be lying to you, you should be comparing their body language with what they normally do. Some things to look for is their facial expressions. Liars tend to put on a good front but if you watch closely expressions will cross their face that they can't control. This is often difficult to spot however. In fact, when people say that just had a gut feeling that someone was lying to them it is often because they saw a quick expression fly across the other persons face and although it happens to fast for us to consciously be aware of it, we do subconsciously notice. the most interesting part of this is that about 99% of people can't read micro-expressions. But with the proper training (in less than an hour) the average person can be taught to see these expressions and recognize them for what they are.
Body language is extremely important in deciding if someone is lying. All of the body language needs to fit together. They can't have a calm voice but be fidgeting, and they should have a calm demeanor but a shaky voice. Many people blush, nibble their lip, do deep breathing, rapid blinking, flare their nostrils, etc. All of these things can hint towards their brains having to work overtime. Many times when people are trying to lie they over-regulate normal things like breathing and blinking so that they appear calm. The harder someone tries to tell a lie the less they tend to move. They minimize their behaviors to take the attention away from their body language.
It is also important to look for inconsistencies in stories. One way to do that is to attempt to catch them in their own lie. You can also throw them a curve ball and ask a question that they most likely haven't thought out an answer for. As I mentioned earlier look for someone trying to hard to appear normal as well as someone being distant. If they are staring at you they may be trying too hard because many people believe liars can't look you in the eye. However, if they are fidgety and can't look you in the eye there is a good chance that you are dealing with a really bad liar.
One of my sources went a bit further and even suggested that if someone touches the base of their nose that could be a sign of them lying or if they are pursing their mouth. The reason for pursing their mouth is that when someone is lying they aren't getting as much oxygen so they usually breath through their mouth rather than their nose. You may also find that a liar gives more detail than necessary as well as answers questions that aren't even asked.
There is so much to watch and be aware of when talking to someone. I know in my job I have some kids that I know I can just ask a question to and as soon as I finish the question I'll know the answer. And when they try to lie they start to blush, don't make eye contact (or do but stare), they get fidgety and they try to move the conversation away from the actual question. It is really fun for me to watch that body language and build on how to read other people.
Terminology: baseline, fidgety, body language, liar, pursing mouth, eye contact, deep breathing, behaviors, facial expressions, micro-expressions
How to Spot a Liar: 7 Clues Anyone Can Use
http://www.rd.com/slideshows/how-to-spot-a-liar/#slideshow=slide7
This source gave a few helpful tips on what to watch for when you think someone is lying to you.
10 Ways to Catch a Liar
http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/10-ways-catch-liar?page=2
This source was really helpful. It gave examples from a trained federal agent and the information was really helpful.
How to Spot a Liar
http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/228
This source was short but fun to read. It is from Dr. Phil so I thought it would interesting to read his take on how to spot a liar. Some of his hints were the same as the other two sources but he did have a few I hadn't heard before.
For this weeks blog I wanted to research more into artificial intelligence. The chapter had a lot of great information about the topic, and the field of artificial intelligence is such a broad field. So, for this week I just wanted to get to some more information about the topic, and research topics that were in the chapter. The main topics that I would like to research that the chapter talked about would be language in artificial intelligence, pattern recognition and the use of binary code, and then general knowledge about the topic of artificial intelligence.
The first article that I found had to do with general knowledge about artificial intelligence. What this article talked about was the way in which computers are becoming more and more apart of the human life. The basic processes in which humans problem solve is becoming obsolete because computers can do the same task even faster and better. The example that the article gave was about how computers can calculate a basic math function faster than a human. A human has the ability to apply meaning to the number, but the computer can do it way faster. The article also went on to talk about that computers are taking on most of the work load. Humans are now relying more on computers more than ever. A perfect example is the cell phones that most people have. Without our phones we could not tell the time, the date, or even know when to wake up in the morning without an alarm. We also rely on our phones to search for areas of destination, or how to contact people we want to come into contact with. These are the many reasons that humans are becoming more reliant on the functions of computers to get us through the day. I think that artificial intelligence will continue to grow in my life time and then way beyond that. The chapter talked about the movie IRobot and how robots would soon be just like humans. That seems many years away, but the idea of that happening is never not a possibility. I enjoyed this article and it helped in my understanding of the subject of artificial intelligence and cognitive psychology.
The next article that I wanted to learn about in the field of artificial intelligence was pattern recognition. I think that pattern recognition goes hand in hand with artificial intelligence, and the way computers are able to process information. The chapter had talked about binary code, and how computers are able to place value to a number based off its unique binary code to a number. While humans are able to see a number and know its value based on its place among other numbers, computers are able to understand numbers based on binary code. In the last article I researched it talked about how computers are able to compute functions way faster than a human can, and that is because computers just use binary code to come up with the answer. A human may have to use a calculation or a formula that might take twice as long. A computer has the formula installed into its program which makes it able to calculate the formula that much faster. This is just one of many ways that computers are taking over the ability of humans. The idea that I has while reading was that computers are only as smart as the humans that make the programs. I believe that computers will soon be able to perform functions that will surpass the ability of humans without the use of humans. I think that this article has some very important information that helped in my understanding of cognitive psychology.
For the last article I wanted to learn more about the language processing features of artificial intelligence. I was interested in the topic from the chapter because I find it interesting how a computer is able to communicate with humans. When computers were first built to perform simply calculations, they never thought that they would be able to perform the language function. The processing features that the book talked about was ELIZA, PARRY, and NETtalk. These programs are now considered obsolete because they are light years behind what is available today. An example that this article talked about was the language processing software on our phones. The common language processing software that most phones have now is SIRI. Humans are able to ask questions to the phone and the language processing software interprets the information given, and produces an answer. Asking about a specific location SIRI will provide the businesses website, and then the location that the business. language processing has come so far and will continue to grow. I thought that this article had some very useful information about language processing and how it continues to grow. This article also talked about the language processing software that was first built, and now how far it as come. This article was very helpful in my understanding of cognitive psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
This article was was helpful in the general knowledge of artificial intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition
This article had information that taught me more about binary code and pattern recognition in artificial intelligence.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000981.html
This article was helpful in the understanding of language processing software and how it relates to cognitive psychology.
1a) State what your topic is.
For this week’s reading I decided to look at Bayesian probabilities and how they relate to quantum mechanics.
1b) Discuss how the topic relates to the chapter.
This chapter talked about decision making, and proposed the Bayesian theorem as an equation to find the probability of an action.
1c) Discuss why you are interested in it.
This is interesting to me because I am interested in probabilities as they are incredibly important in the world of quantum mechanics. I am interested in the world of quantum mechanics because it is mysterious and fascinating, and leads to some pretty amazing observations about the world we live in.
2)
In our textbook, Bayesian probabilities were introduced as a way of determining the probability of an event, and the subsequent decision of an individual based on the probability. Bayesian probabilities extended past the initial frequentist view of probability, which defined probability as the frequency of an event over a large (or infinite) number of trials. The problem with the frequentist approach, is that you would have to have an event happen and not happen a large number of times before you could define any probabilities. This is troublesome if the event happens seldom, or you do not have the ability to wait for events to occur before finding the probability. The Bayesian approach tries to find the probability of an event based on an equation that uses priors. Priors are assumptions of probabilities that you must make before structuring an equation in Bayesian probability. There are two differing schools of thought here. Subjective Bayesians presume that the choice of a prior is unavoidably subjective, whereas objective Bayesians argue that probabilities cannot be based on subjective probabilities and that there must be some way to find the correct priors. Generally, priors must be subjective for one to get anywhere with Bayesian probabilities.
Probabilities are essential to quantum mechanics, and it has been a topic of debate for what equations should be used for determining these probabilities. I will explain how the Bayesian probability works in accordance with quantum mechanics, but first I will explain the classic double-slit experiment which illustrates how important these probabilities are. In the beginning of the 19th century, a man named Thomas Young wanted to test his theory about whether light was a wave or a particle. To do this, he structured an experiment where he put a light source behind a wall that had two tiny slits in it, and then he put a measurement screen some distance on the other side. He then fired photons (the particles that make up light) at the screen and found a weird wavelike pattern. If photons were actually particles, they would have simple traveled in a linear path past the slits and he would have observed two solid lines on the measurement screen instead of this odd wavelike pattern. He then put a photon detector pointed directly at the slits and tried the experiment again, but this time he found those two solid lines. It was determined that photons exist naturally as a probability distribution, not a particle. This way, when the photons went through the slits unobserved, they acted as a wave. The reason for the odd pattern that was observed was because of the interference between the two different wave functions. As the higher probabilities of the two waves collided, they would find more photons there on the measurement screen, but when a low probability met with a high probability, they sort of canceled each other out (This is a really cool experiment and I would advise watching the video rather than just reading my explanation). They concluded that the measurement collapses the waveform to a physical particle. This means that when the photon detector was set up at the slits, it found the photon had to exist in one of the places of probability, and not all of them. After it had been measured, then it existed as a particle and followed the expected linear trajectory resulting in the two observed patterns of light. However, when they were not observed until they met with the measurement screen, they existed as a probability distribution. Furthermore, when the photon detector was set up and running, but not recording data to be seen by the researchers, they once again found the wave pattern. This means that the conscious observation of the photon, is literally the only thing that makes it a particle. Thus, reality is simply a product of consciousness. Pretty fuckin’ cool, right?
Now we know that probabilities are important in the world of quantum mechanics, because before anything is something, it is first a probability distribution. Let’s look at this in simpler terms of a different particle, an electron. All electrons throughout the universe are exactly identical, except for their spin; an electron can either have an up spin or a down spin. The probability of an electron having a down spin is going to be 50%, that is until you observe that electron and determine its spin. Then there is either a 100% chance or a 0% chance that it has a down spin. In the laws of classical physics, maximal information provides complete and definite information about a system. Here, measurement of one variable in a system (A) allows for immediate information for a new state of the system (B). In the laws of quantum physics, maximal information is not complete and cannot be completed. Here, measuring A gives you knowledge about B; the state itself cannot be construed to be more than a reflection of this new knowledge. Because of this uncertainty, Einstein claimed that quantum states cannot be ‘real states of affairs’. These quantum states of affairs are subjective Bayesian probabilities, in that all probabilities derived from a quantum state depend on a state of knowledge.
There is a set of rules, known as Gleason’s Theorem, that dictate Bayesian probabilities in the quantum world. Gleason’s theorem states that under the assumption of the Hilbert-space structure (The Hilbert-space structure extends the methods of vector algebra and calculus from the two-dimensional Euclidean plane and 3-dimensional space to spaces with any finite or infinite number of dimensions) of quantum question, Dutch-book consistency (A Dutch-book is a set of premises that guarantee a desired result. Incidentally, bookkeepers use Bayesian calculus to ensure Dutch-books are not possible when taking bets), and probabilities reflecting the Hilbert-space structure, any subjective probability assignment must have the form which is the standard quantum rule for probabilities. (I tried to include the equation, but the specific characters are not allowed in this textbox.) This information is useful, not particularly to you or I perhaps, but to the scientific community as a whole. We are moving toward a more quantum world. The use of quantum computers is going to change the way we think about a lot of things. Understanding probabilities and their effects on what is being observed will be crucial to the impending quantum revolution.
3)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html
This link explained Bayesian probabilities in depth.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106133v2.pdf
I used this link to examine the relationship between Bayesian probabilities and quantum probabilities.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CF8QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphysics.bu.edu%2F~youssef%2Fquantum%2Fmpl2.ps&ei=telXU-2dPKbm2gWgsICQBA&usg=AFQjCNGtUT3iKmVZTB7bz0f5Mnu4gE5ZoQ
I didn’t use information from this link to include in the blog, but I wanted to include the link because it contains a paper examining quantum mechanics as a complex probability theory. The reason I didn’t use it, was because the theory was a bit too complex for me, but I wanted to include it because it was interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E
This link did an excellent job of explaining the classic double-slit experiment. This video was done by a professor of quantum mechanics who clearly knew what he was talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0
This link also explained the double-slit experiment, but did so in a simplified way that didn’t talk about some of the factors that are relevant to the experiment (the observer effect). This link did do a good job of showing the interference effect though, which is why I included the links to both videos.
This week I decided to look at straw man and ad hominem fallacies. These fallacies were touched upon in the chapter for this week, but I wanted to learn more about them, when they are used, and why.
Straw man is a tactic used in an argument where you misrepresent your opponent's argument, making it seem outlandish and implausible. This type of argument is used to discredit the opponent, but only works when the audience is uniformed of the original argument or the audience is biased. This tactic is often used as a last resort, when there is no logical rebuttal to the opponent's argument.
From what I found, the origins of the straw man seem to be unclear. Aristotle made references to similar behaviors, but the term was not coined at that point. It was used in 1956 in the book Guides to Straight Thinking by Stuart Chase.
Another common fallacy is the ad hominem fallacy. The fallacy is used when a person disregards an argument not based on the argument itself, but on a characteristic or fact of the presenter of the argument. This is an informal fallacy and is often used in response to an appeals to authority fallacy.
There are many types of ad hominem, including abusive, circumstantial, tu quoque, and guilt by association. Abusive types involve attacking the traits of a person in order to discredit their arguments. Believing that a person's character relates to their argument is a fallacy in itself. Circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is predisposed to a certain argument or point of view based on their circumstances. This is a fallacy as well, because someone picking an argument for a specific reason does not invalidate the decision or the argument. Tu quoque involves claiming that the person of the opposing argument is acting or has acted in a way that it inconsistent with their argument. An example of this would be someone telling people not to smoke, while smoking themselves. These actions do not actually disprove the argument, making it a fallacy. Guilt by association links two groups together based on a common argument. This is often used to pair the opposing group with a group that is thought to be negative by most individuals.
Both of these fallacies are used in many different situations. Politicians often use them in debates and speeches, especially when trying to garner support. These arguments are also used in court, as well as day to day conversations. Both of these fallacies rely on an uniformed audience. If the audience realizes or is aware of what the speaker is trying to do it would decrease the support. People would feel manipulated if they knew this was going on, so it is often done subtly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
This article was used to gain information about the straw man argument and its origins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
This video explains the straw man argument in a different way and is more entertaining that just reading about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
This article tells about the history of ad hominem arguments and the different types of them
This week I decided to look further into creativity, since it is the concept that interested me most when I read the chapter. I wondered if creativity can be learned. Is it something we are born with? Or is it something we learn? Or both? People keep telling me to think outside of the box. But can I learn how to do that? And how?
There are certain factors that limit our creativity in this world. Social condition is one. We were constantly being taught what to do, how to live, right from wrong as children. We were told to listen and do what others say. When we grew a little older, we were programmed to fit in and look like other people, believing that if we are different we will have a bad time. These self-limiting beliefs are hard to break once they are in place, and most of the time we are not even trying to break it. We follow what we are taught to do and what others are doing. There is no room for creativity. But there is hope!
Although creativity seems like a gift people are born with, and it certainly is in some cases, research suggests that it is possible to adjust to mind so that creativity can emerge. Also, creativity is even taught in some places as an academic discipline! So what does it take to be creative? First, you need to adjust your mindset into believing that not all feedback is good for you. What other people want might not be what you want. Then, we need to criticize yourself, but in a good way. Always ask yourself how some certain tasks can be done better, or what would you have done differently? Are there any other ways to achieve what you have already achieved? Lastly, being a perfectionist does not help with your creativity. If something always has to be done exactly right, then there is no creativity in that task. Nature is imperfect and so are we. Challenge is another way to force the creativity out of you. Try different tasks like thinking obsessively about a subject, writing a metaphorical journal, combine two distinctively different ideas, try talking without I, me, my, and mine… etc.
http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Creative
step by step on how to be creative
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140314-learn-to-be-creative
this bbc article discuss some research that have been done regarding creativity
http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/can-you-learn-to-be-creative/
this is special since it points out different factors that limit our creativity in the real world.
This week I decided to look further into logic. The book discusses the basic idea of inductive and deductive reasoning in reference to logic, and briefly mentions a history using the example of Socrates’ famous use of logic during his court trial that was eloquently documented by Plato. What I learned, starting with a little history of logic, is that Aristotle is the one credited for popularizing the use of logic in order to solve problems in Ancient Greece. From there he applied it to philosophy, and philosophy as we all know was the earliest form of systematic science. In the east logic was developed by Buddhists and ran essentially the same course of development.
Logic is usually divided into three major parts: inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is when you choose from a set of options the best answer to a real world problem, much like a multiple choice test. Deductive reasoning is when you start with a broad fact, and build your argument up from there. This is the kind of reasoning Socrates was famous for, and it is also the structure used most often in court room situations even now. An easy example of deductive reasoning is this:
All humans are mortal.
I am a human.
Therefore I will one day die, as I am mortal.
Abductive reasoning is a more modern branch of logic and is focused on observation. It allows for one to form a hypothesis based on relevant observation, and then investigate further through observation.
There are two types of logic: informal and formal. Informal logic has to do with the study of language, focusing on fallacies. My favorite fallacy is the either-or fallacy where the person who is making an argument or a statement makes the problem appear as if it has only two possible solutions. For example, if I say that my car won’t start so either I need a new battery or my ignition is out. There are obviously many other possibilities as to why my car won’t start. Another common fallacy is the deductive fallacy, where someone has attempted to use deductive reasoning but has made an error in their formatting. For example:
All humans are mortal
Therefore I will one day die, as I am mortal.
Here the person left out the fact that they are human, and though it may be assumed, the strength of deductive reasoning is that it never assumes anything and therefore is nearly impossible to argue with when applied correctly. Formal logic is very different however, and focuses on abstract concepts as being the foundation of the argument. The particular type of concept is specific however, it must be a rule that is not about any particular thing or property, and if it holds to this it is believed to be always true and therefore a good foundation for an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
This page gave me the majority of my information about the forms and types of logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
This site gave me the information about abductive reasoning.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm
The site gave me most of the history information about philosophy from different areas of the world.
My topic is the psychology of lying. This topic relates to the chapter because chapter 13 was about logic. The chapter included information about studies that have looked at lying and detection of lies especially with prisoners. I am interested in this topic because I want to know why we lie oppose to telling the truth and why some people are better liars than others.
According to some recent studies, lying is quite frequent in social interactions. Most people lie at least once or twice a day and both men and women lie in about 20% of social interactions that last longer than 10 minutes. Lies are even more frequent depending on the type of relationship. One study found that college students lie to their mothers in about 50% of conversations. In romantic relationships, couples lie to each other in about 30% of their interactions. Married couples, however, only lie to each about in about 10% of their interactions. This seems like a lot of lying in our everyday interactions, however, psychologists suggests that small lies actually help people get along better. In one study, one in every four lies were fake positive lies which are lies told solely to benefit another person.
Although people tend to lie in a fair amount of social interactions, some people lie more often and are better at lying than others. Research suggests that extroverted people are slightly more likely to lie. Self-confident and physically attractive people are also more likely to lie and are more believable when lying under pressure. Depressed individuals are surprisingly less likely to lie to themselves as well as others. Some research suggests that lying to yourself is actually good for mental health. There does not appear to be a sex difference in frequency of lying. Women lie as often as men do; however, the content of the lie is generally different for men and women. Women are more likely to lie to protect someone’s feelings while men’s lies tend to be more self-oriented.
Humans are really bad at detecting when people are lying. In one study, participants correctly identified false statements only 54% of the time which is slightly better than chance. Contrary to popular belief, there is not one tell-tale sign that helps identify when someone is lying and when they are not. In fact, polygraphs aka lie detectors are not much better than humans at detecting lies. The American Polygraph Association claims that polygraphs are accurate over 90% of the time; however some research suggests that these accuracy rates are closer to 65% which is also only slightly better than chance. There is also about a 50% chance that a polygraph will indicate someone is lying when the individual is really being honest.
Research has investigated some small signs of lying. People tend to be unusually still and make more eye contact while lying. They are do not tend to blink or fidget more as has been suggested in the past. People tend to be slightly higher pitched when lying and do not include as much detail in order to avoid getting caught in a lie. Liars also tend to use fewer first person pronouns, fewer exclusionary words (but, not, etc.), and more negative words in written samples. Humans can judge written lies with about 67% accuracy which is a considerable increase from 54%. Some people are just naturally better at detecting lies. These people tend to pay more attention to vocal cues, behaviors, and word usage; however, researchers have been unsuccessful at training people to become better at detecting liars.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199704/the-truth-about-lying This resource discussed how common lying is and who lies. It also talked about who is good at lying and who is not.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/detecting.aspx This resource talked about how to detect deception.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work This resourced talked about lie detectors and the controversy about their utility.
1a) State what your topic is.
I am choosing to do more research on Ad hominem arguments.
1b) Discuss how the topic relates to the chapter.
This topic is related to the chapter because it was discussed in the chapter.
1c) Discuss why you are interested in it.
I am interested in this because I have seen this in my everyday life when people take low blows when arguing with someone.
2) Next, we would like you to take the information you read or viewed related to your topic, integrate/synthesize it, and then write about the topic in a knowledgeable manner.
It is common for people to misunderstand what an Ad hominem argument is. Certain individuals may think that an Ad hominem argument implies sarcasm. An Ad hominem argument is unrelated to sarcasm. This type of argument is when someone attempts to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. This comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s argument.
An Ad hominem argument is also an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Ad hominem abuse usually involves insulting one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual character flaws, which are relevant to the opponent’s argument. To put it simply, an Ad hominem argument is when an argument is happening and one person says something bad about the other person unrelated to the argument just to try to win the argument.
In August, 2011, there was a good example of an Ad hominem argument in a speech that president Obama gave. President Obama delivered a speech in Michigan that said that there was nothing wrong with the nation and the structure of its underperforming economy. He said that “there are some in congress right now who would rather see their opponents lose than see America win – and that has to stop.” Charging one’s opponent with bad faith is the ultimate political Ad hominem. Here is another example: “You can’t believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn’t even have a job.” Another example: “Candidate Jane’s proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.”
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
I used this source to get information on what an Ad hominem argument is.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ad_hominem.html
I used this source to tell me more about Ad hominem arguments as well as giving me an example of one.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/the_ultimate_political_ad_homi031689.php
I used this source to get information from a real life Ad hominem argument. I also liked that it was an example of a political Ad hominem because that is where you see this type of argument a lot of the time.
1) The effects of poverty on cognitive function and decision making is the topic I wanted to learn more about. There was a section in the chapter that explained the how and why we make the decision that we do. As I was searching for information on why we make bad decisions, I stumbled across this really interesting research that has come out in the last couple of months that discussed how being poor effects your decisions.
2) While it is easy to stigmatize the poor, in that their poor decisions lead to poverty but in reality, for most people-it is the fact they are poor that leads to bad decisions. Not only can being poor lead to poor decisions, but your cognitive function can be directly impacted if you are living in poverty. A study done by an economics professor at Harvard and his colleagues illustrated this fact by conducting research in a New Jersey shopping mall. They asked shoppers, with varying income levels, to imagine that they had a repair bill for their car that was $300 and then followed up by giving them cognitive tests that would measure certain aspects of an intelligence test, such as logical thinking and problem solving. The results showed that the performance on these tests were similar, regardless of income. However, when the same question was posed but with the repair bill equaling $3000, a very different picture emerged. When given the cognitive tests, people that were low income scored lower on these tests, even when the scenario was imagined! Scarcity has a direct impact on an individuals ability to think clearly.
This concept was also studied in a laboratory setting, with these researchers using college students from University of Chicago, Princeton and Harvard. They wanted to establish that decision making can be impaired, regardless of the type of scarcity that was used. These students were asked to play different kinds of games in which they could be assigned a budget of money they could spend or earn, such as Wheel of Fortune or Family Feud. At random, students were assigned low or high rewards and also offered a chance to borrow rewards, but would have to pay to do so. Just like the studies done in the mall, the students that were rewarded with small amount scored significantly worse on cognitive tasks. Also, the “poor” students generally borrowed more and this borrowing lead to worse performance on the cognitive tests. Lastly, what this study also showed was that when given a chance to get hints on the questions that would appear next, the “poor” students hardly ever utilized this, while the “rich” students almost always did, therefore increasing their earnings. This would indicate, much like the other research done on this subject, that poor people live in the now, because it becomes too difficult to plan for the future. This research has also been done in other parts of the world in which poverty is at a whole other level then the United States. In third world countries, in which farmers rely on their crop for survival, perform much better on cognitive tests after harvest then before. This is attributed to the fact that after harvest, they are finally getting the financial rewards of their hard work.
One doesn’t have to be living in poverty to understand how we can become so distracted by something, that it can affect our ability to pay attention. For example, before class, you have decided that you can wait until after class to get something to eat. However, 10 minutes into the lecture, you realize just how hungry you are and suddenly, you aren’t able to concentrate on anything but how hungry you are. The problem with poverty is that you aren’t ever able to escape the stress of not having enough.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201309/why-having-too-little-leads-bad-decisions
It discussed a lot about the Harvard research. I used information from this article for some of the information on the study.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/poverty_and_cognitive_impairment_study_shows_money_troubles_make_decision.html
It really talked about how being affluent means you don’t have to think so much about the decisions you make. I also integrated this article into information about the research.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/your-money/money-secrets/how-poverty-changes-way-we-make-decisions
This article was an interview with the lead researcher on the study. A more personal look at his research and was able to use his thoughts on the study to touch up from the other articles.
I chose to do my research on deductive and inductive reasoning from this chapter. I wanted to get a better grasp on what it is about.
Deductive reasoning is a form of valid reasoning. It starts out by having a general hypothesis and looks at all possibilities to get to a logical conclusion. It states that if something is true for a class, then it is true for everything that is in that class. An example would be pigs can’t fly, my dad has pigs and they can’t fly. It starts working with general information and gets more specific as it goes along. We use deductive reasoning in everyday life even though we don’t think about it. Especially college students when writing papers, we get an idea of what we want to write the topic on and then we get it narrowed down so it isn’t so broad. Strong support is shown with deductive reasoning, whereas inductive isn’t as much.
Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive. It makes a wide range of generalizations. Conclusions in this can be false. It is used in scientific method to make hypotheses and theories. Inductive reasoning goes from specific observations to a wider range. This also increases the probability of the conclusion.
Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, hypothesis, hypotheses, conclusion, scientific method, theories, observations, probability,
http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
This website told what it is and what they do in the scientific method.
http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/Deductive-Reasoning-Versus-Inductive-Reasoning.htm
This website went more indepth on how they are different.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
Talks about probability of the conclusion
1a. My topic this week will be looking into Assocationism, what it is, and where it began.
1b.This topic dealt with the theories of concept formation and mentioned that asscocationism was one of the oldest and most influential theories.
1c. I was interested in this topic because of all the topics in the chapter this week, I was familiar with this topic as it has come up in my memory and language class and even a beginning philosophy class I have taken before. I thought it would be a good topic to expand my knowledge on.
Associationism is the idea that mental processes operate by the association of one mental state with its related states prior. This is oldest and most influential theory of concept formation, which is itself the discernment of properties common to a class of objects or ideas. These ideas date back to Aristotle and Plato in regards to the succession of memories. Items become associated in the mind through experience and are thought to combine to form thoughts. For example, a child knows not to touch fire because it causes pain, the child knows this from a past experience so the two things become associated. Fire and pain can both be associated with other things can make a complex web of thoughts. There are many types of associations we all make. Things that contrast are associated, things that have a cause and effect relationship, things that similar are of course associated, and things that happen in a continuous fashion. Aristotle believed that it was common sense that different aspects of an object combined together form the idea or thought of the object. For instance he believed that look, feel, taste, and smell of an apple became the idea of an apple in our thoughts. Later John Locke revived the ideas in philosophy by saying there was no such thing as innate ideas, only ideas that were dependent on association of sensations. David Hume expanded upon these ideas by saying that associations sprung from resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. These ideas of associationism are said to be the beginning of cognitive psychology because they were used to explain the existences of a conscious and of altruistic motives. Associationism paired experiences to create thought and learning. In this theory learning is the associations between unrelated information based on their contiguity, which is a word I had to look up and it means the state of bordering or being in direct contact with something. It is said that associationism gave way to the ideas of behaviorism. It is not hard to think of examples of association in our lives. For me I use it all the time while studying, pairing new ideas with things I have already experienced helps me to retain the new information; it is also an invaluable to me when taking scantron tests because I may not forthright know the answer but if I can make an association between the question and one of the answers it boosts my chances of getting it right. Even today in psychology the Rorschach Inkblot tests uses association to distinguish any underlying mental ailments patients. While there have been many other theories brought forth for how we learn, associationism has many principles that still abound today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associationism
This website helped in that it gave me a basic definition and outline for what associationism is and who all helped develop the theory.
http://susanlucas.com/it/ail601/associationism.html
This website helped in that it very much expanded on the ideas of associationism and told me about the history and principles that incorporate it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3M5ntiX3Zg
This week I decided to use my initial idea and research logical fallacies in more detail. Specifically, I decided to look at ad hominem and strawman fallacies primarily. This relates to the chapter because they were specifically mentioned as an aspect of decision making in the real world. I’ve been interested in logical fallacies since they were first introduced to me in a philosophy class and then again in an English class. I feel that knowing the various logical fallacies is an important aspect of being able to form a comprehensive argument and that too many people rely on them in order to articulate their opinions, especially when it comes to political leanings and other difficult topics.
First, I want to address the subject of ad hominem. Ad hominem involves attacking a person’s character or their personal traits, such as their appearance, instead of addressing their argument. It is one of the less inconspicuous types of logical fallacies and can either be a blatant attack or a more subtle approach at undermining an opponent’s character. It also comes in different types as well. One of these types is the abusive type, which specifically involves attacking an opponent’s traits in an attempt to invalidate their arguments. Another type is circumstantial, which involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position, showing a bias. This might sound like an okay strategy but bias to an argument doesn’t invalidate the argument itself. A third type of ad hominem is tu quoque, which involves claiming that the opponent has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. A good example of this was provided in which a son tries to discredit his father’s advice to not smoke with the accusation that he himself was/is a smoker. The fourth and final type is guilt by association. I involves “attacking a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument”.
The second logical fallacy that I looked at was the strawman fallacy. This fallacy involves misrepresenting someone’s argument in order to make it easier to attack. It is a common fallacy in debates (especially presidential debates) and takes advantage of an audience’s ignorance of the topic being debated. It makes for an easier method of attacking an opponent due to the fact that the fallacy involves either misrepresenting the opponent’s argument or flat out claiming they are arguing something that they aren’t. Restructuring an opponent’s argument in order to suit your own needs can be very effective, especially when the crowd doesn’t know any better. Even outside of official debates, the strawman fallacy is very common in arguments. I see it occur quite frequently, especially when touchy topics are brought up, such as the gun debate, or politics in general.
In conclusion, my time researching not only these two logical fallacies and others as well has only served to confirm my previous opinion of the importance of knowing about them. I feel that knowledge of logical fallacies and debating in general could serve the public well, especially when watching something like a presidential debate like we will be in a couple of years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
This was a nice overview of ad hominem and also outlined its different types, which up until now I hadn’t managed to run across.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
This was my main source of information on the strawman fallacy and gave some really good examples.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
This was a really good overall source for fallacies and outlined just how many there are (a lot). I think that I’ll read through it in my free time throughout the next couple of days because they are all really interesting.
1a. For this week’s topical blog I decided to look more into creativity and the brain structures implicated in its use.
1b. This chapter focused on creativity pretty heavily but did not elaborate on the brain structures involved.
1c. I am interested in this topic because creativity and being creative is something that is important in my life and in most people’s lives, I would think. So, I thought it would be interesting to look deeper into the topic.
2. It has long been thought that creative thinking in cognition is attributed to the structure in right lobe of the brain. Going along with this old way of thinking, it was thought that since hand control is cross lateralized in the brain (being left handed means you are right brained) that left handers are on average more creative than their right hand counterparts. Recent research has indicated that this is not the case. Rather than suggesting one hemisphere is dominant when it comes to creative endeavors brain imaging studies have shown that it is the cross talk between the hemispheres that is important. It seems that a thicker corpus callosum is associated with creative endeavors. The corpus collosum is the bundle of fibers that connect the right and left hemispheric lobes of the brain. Additionally it seems neurotransmitters come into play. It was recently found that the neurotransmitter norepinephrine is not produced as much when doing something that involves creativity. The reasoning behind this is that norepinephrine is related to long term memory retrieval and it is thought that when doing something creative it is more beneficial to clear the mind of preconceived notions and memories. It is reasoned that in this way the brain is more able to make novel connections and discover new ideas. It was also found in musicians that spontaneously free style their music the prefrontal cortex is inhibited and the emotional centers like the amygdala are more active.
3. http://www.livestrong.com/article/81868-parts-brain-influence-creativity/
This website helped a lot in understanding the different processes of the brain the affect creativity.
http://www.livescience.com/39671-roots-of-creativity-found-in-brain.html
This website helped explain that it is not one hemisphere or the other that is important in creativity, but rather the whole brain being active.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/08/19/the-real-neuroscience-of-creativity/
This website was helpful in that it reiterated what the first two said and cemented in the fact that the whole brain is responsible for creativity, not a single structure.