Last week of discussions, question 3 12/9/12

Throughout the semester we have covered an array of topics like critical thinking and logic to social contracts and sovereignty. Although there were many topics that were interesting could have used further detail, I believe that the topic "Assumptions Underlying Science" could be better explained. The reason I believe that this is very important is because we use FACTS to support our arguments. Facts are nothing else then science being applied to generate a result, therefore we must understand and be aware of the fallacies science falls victim to. The main assumptions science falls to are Empiricism, Objective, Materialism, Predictability, and Unity. The book talks about them briefly but I believe we as a class could have talked about them in further detail. I believe knowing how a fact came to be can give us  a better understanding of how to use them in our arguments. This is why i think that this topic could have been further talked about especially, since we use them when defending or supporting something.  This has been a great class that has thought me so much that I will be able to carry forward. I thank the teacher and wish her the best with her future classes.



Sincerely, Heisenberg

Last Week of Discussions, Question 1 12/6/12

Over the course we have cover and array of topics. However, I think the biggest thing I have personally learned was how to blog. At the being of this course I had no idea of how we were all going to communicate. When we received the first assignment and email I was shocked and scared because I had never used a blog service before. Although, confusing at first I had fun customizing my page and learning how everything worked on BLOGGER. I am happy that I learned this skill because I find it fun to blog now. Also along with learning the service I liked the way we got to communicate with one another through blogs because we can express ourselves a bit more freely then in a classroom. I know that I sometimes get shy to say something in class and this eliminated that feeling. I know that I learned a lot different topics but I feel that I would have earned that whether in a class room or an online course. However, I do not think I would have started blogging if it was not for this course.


Heisenberg.

Last Week Discussion, Question 2 12/5/12

There is a lot to say about this course, since it was my first online class. I would have to say that the liberty to choose when to do the work for this class was my favorite part of the course. Meaning that the teacher would assign things on Monday and have it due Sunday, but we got to choose when we did it. I liked that a lot because I personally had a lot going on. I think this was the best part of the course because it fit my schedule. However, there were also somethings that I did not like. The main issue with this class I had was that I only knew 7 people throughout the semester. I did not like this because I am a social bug and I talk to everyone in my class in order to set up study groups and such. I think this really hindered the course for me because I did get to meet everyone in the course. Other than that the class was fun. I think that the introduction to this class has to be improved because for the first 2 weeks I was confused of what was going on. I then caught on but it was a difficult beginning. Overall I really did like this course and enjoyed it very much.




Heisenberg.

Chapter 12 Question 1 11/15/12

November 14th, 2012

Virgo Horoscope:

You seem to be a specialist at relationships, and you're very sensitive to the ups and downs in your own. But today you may wonder if people love you less than they did before. This is rather an odd question, but another one may be hiding underneath. Do you really have to make such a big effort in order to be loved? Only you can answer that question.

I laugh at this horoscope because it is not even close to being accurate. For starters I am currently too busy with school to think about if "people love me less then they did before". That pretty much makes the rest of this horoscope false. Right now I am at a good stage in life that I cannot even come close to connecting to any of the predictions made in this horoscope. However, some people maybe be having problems with friends, family, or significant others. Those people might be more inclined to take this advise and run with it. Nevertheless I am not in that boat so this horoscope does nothing for me nor does it make any accurate predictions. I do not really believe in horoscopes so that might be why I am so bias or negative towards them. I see them as big generalization with very faulty predictions. 

Heisenberg.

Chapter 12 Question 2 11/14/12

This was a difficult question because I am a very logical thinker and don't jump to conclusions. However, (before I had a girlfriend) during the first day of class, Spring 2012, I noticed a very cute girl that was walking ahead of me. I thought she was just walking in the same direction as me but as it turned out she was in my class. I was quite excited but did not show it. Class was boring like it always is on the first day, but I was excited to introduce myself to her. However, when class ended there was a guy waiting for the girl outside the class room. I jumped to a conclusion right there and then, which was "just my luck she is taken". I know many guys have felt that way or have been placed in that situation. A week passed and the girl kept sitting next to me, even though I had seen her with her "boyfriend". I was polite and did not hit on her, however one day the topic for the class was on relationships. We were placed in groups and she happened to be in mine. We all had to state whether or not we were in a relationship and if so for how long. I had concluded that she was taken but did not ever ask her myself or try to use scientific methods to she if my conclusion was right or wrong. As it turns out she was single! I was so mad at myself for assuming because it hindered me from talking to her. It was here were I applied some scientific methods such as "Gathering Additional Information and Refine my Hypothesis". I found out the guy waiting for her was a cousin who she commuted with and that she had been single for over a year due to her busy schedule. I then refined my Hypothesis and developed a new one. This situation really reinforced my logical thinking personally and never again will I jump to a conclusion.


Heisenberg.

Chapter 12 Question 3 11/13/12

This week in chapter twelve the main concept that caught my attention was assumptions underling science. The reason it caught my attention was because it is the structure that science and scientist must follow. There are five key assumptions and those are empiricism, objectivity, materialism, predictability, and unity. I will discuss what I thought each meant starting with empiricism. Empiricism is the belief that are physical senses are the primary source of knowledge, as the book explains. I thought that this meant that we have to experience the world by trial and error in order to gain knowledge. Next assumption is Objectivity, which the book describes as "the belief that we observe and study the physical world "our there" as an object outside of us without bias on the part of the scientist/observer". I thought that this was straight forward because scientist must conduct experiments with no desired outcome that will show their opinion. The third assumption is Materialism, which literally means that everything around us, including ourselves, are made up of physical matter.  The next assumption is Predictability, which simply means that our world has order and can be predicted at times. This however, does not hold true especially with Quantum Mechanics. Last we have the assumption of Unity, which states that everything in the universe is connected some how some way. I really like these concepts because they were a great way to kick of the chapter. It gave me a sense of having some background in science.



Heisenberg.

Chapter 11 Qusetion 2 11/11/12

I want to start off by saying that I really enjoy these types of question. Like last week I have very mixed feelings when it comes to this topic and the arguments the witters present. Once again like last week we see two people that stand on extreme opposite ends of the topic. This weeks topic is Internet Plagiarism, which seems to be a growing concern due to the fact of the accessibility of information. Brook Sadler is an assistant teacher who strongly believes that any kind of plagiarism is wrong. She believes that this undermines the educational system, which I believe is true. However, Russell Hunt believes that this new trend of internet plagiarism is a calling to change the present school system. He believes that the current system is outdated and need to be change with what he calls "active learning". I am very stuck here because I do believe plagiarism is wrong in any form but I also feel that the old style of teaching really doesn't work today. Technology, communication, and even media is changing so I ask why shouldn't teaching and learning change as well. Both writers had a good point but I have to agree with Hunt that the present educational system needs a change.


Heisenberg.

Chapter 11 Question 1 11/10/12

From the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep we are surrounded by different types of media. Today it has become the norm to have a cell phone, TV, and laptop all of which keep us in tune with media. It seems that we cannot escape the strength media has over our lives. It seems that it has now become a way of life for many, especially our generation. Although this may be true I don't believe it is a bad thing because it gives us multiple view points on multiple topics. No longer to we just have opinions from people in this country but we also get opinion from everyone else in the world. I feel like now we can choose and ignore which values and beliefs fit us. For example, I read an article from New York on the topic of President Obama's reelection and how they (the writers) were looking forward to it. However, I also found an article from Texas a state that most voted for Governor Romney in which it stated that we were going to suffer another 4 years thanks to the Obama administration. This shows how even in our on country we have different worldview on the same topic. We also see from this that people have different values which are represented from each candidate during the election. All in all media has both been a positive and a negative to our values and worldviews but as critical thinkers we must stop and thinking about what benefits our future.



Heisenberg.

Chapter 11, Question 3 11/5/12

Hello Readers,
I want to start off by saying that this was a great chapter to read after last weeks chapter. Last week we read about how company's market and use advertisement to appeal to us. In this weeks chapter the book is trying to teach us how to interpenetrate mass media as a whole. This is I believe is very helpful with the election being right around the corner. I really enjoyed reading "Depth of News Analysis". This topic illustrated how media is being used today by the companies that own the broadcasting company's. It shocked me to see that corporations pay people to write bias article to appeal to people. This made me think of all the prop "#" commercial being aired right now and how much corporations paid to get those aired. I wonder after reading this chapter how much of the media is "unbiased" because I believe everything is is bias to a certain extent. Also this topic in the chapter brought some other insight into how people take things out of context to create a more entertaining story. I feel like we have so much liberty to use our freedom of speech that it is actually hindering us from voicing the truth in media. Those are my two sense of a topic this week and thanks for reading.

Heisenberg.

Chapter 10, Question 2 11/2/12

These two texts written by Margo G. Wootan and Robert Liodice were fun to read. The reason they were so entertaining was that they completely stood on opposite sides of the topic. Wootan called for strict regulations that companies involved in food should follow when advertising to children. In contrast, Liodice believes that companies have the right to use their freedom of speech in any manner they like. He suggested it is not the company's fault for all the obesity in this country but the fault lies in parents, teachers, and other authority figures that do not suggest healthy eating. These arguments placed me in an awkward mind set because I seemed to agree with both. However, I do think Liodice had a slightly better argument because if we restrict one type of advertisement then soon we will have to restrict other types as well. This I believe will hinder the thought of freedom of speech since a lot of things will be band from saying or doing. I think that Liodice feels the same way because he believes that the freedom of speech is an essential part of living, breathing, and growing up in AMERICA.



Heisenberg

Chapter 10, Question 3 10/30/12

I want to talk in detail about Rhetorical Devices and Misleading Language. This to me stuck out because this is pretty much what we encounter everyday. Whether we are in our cars or at home we are being struck by media on television and radio with their use of this language and devices. The book brings up a few instances of when we might see or notice these devices at work. One of the first devices is Euphemisms, which is defined as the replacement of a term that has a negative association by a neutral or positive term. In advertisement they never use the words like "small", "old", or "adequate"to describe their product. They know there terms are off putting so they replace them with words that don't seem as bad like "compact", " Charming", or "excellent". Another devices advertisement uses is Hyperbole, which is pretty much an exaggeration. There is no need to explain this because it is easy to see how this is used (Viagra Commercials.) This is just the tip of the ice burg but these two me are the most used of all. There are also feel- good slogans, vague language, and emotive words. All of these thing are used to trying to get us to purchase an item and it words as we can see from our last trip to the mall.


Heisenberg.  

Chapter 10 Question 1

I want to start off by saying this was probably one of the best chapters in the book. This is due to the realization that we must be critical thinkers at all time because marketers are trying to trick us. Not in a bad way, but marketers are trying to convince us to buy their product over a competitors by using special techniques. These techniques for the most part go unnoticed by people but if we stop and think about the situation we are in we can notice these techniques. These "techniques" are brand recognition, impulse buying, and guilt response. This past week I was watching Sunday night football and a Nike commercial came on and I immediately thought to myself, "I think I might need some new running shoes".  This all happened from seeing the Nike swoosh and in this way marketing affects it buying by implanting, metaphorically speaking, their name into the heads of customers. Therefore, this causes Nike to resonate in our brains which will make it more likely to buy their product. I think that brand recognition is the strongest tool a marketing company can use. The two other techniques just play along side brand recognition I believe.



Heisenberg.

Chapter 4, Question 3 10/21/12

In “Evaluating Evidence for the Existence of Unidentified Flying Objects”, there are three authors that all have different views for the belief that UFO's exist. I seemed that all their arguments where based of bias opinion from themselves. In this way I think they compared but they are in complete contrast when it come to the final verdict of whether UFO's exist. The first bias opinion was written by Edward Condon, who believed that because there was a high count of reports and sightings that UFO's must exist. This then leads him to argue that these finding or reports should be published in academic and scientific journals. However, the second opinion was more neutral then bias, which was presented by J. Allen Hynek, that stated that we must look further in detail into these reports in order to accurately analyze them. He proposed that we must physiologically study the witnesses in order to find the honest truth whether it be a lie or the truth. Lastly, Royston Paynter argued that there was to little of evidence to even look into such  subject. Honestly all these arguments can be believed by some and ignored by others. In this way it hard to say which argument was better because they all are very different from each other. Hoevewr, I think Hynek had a point in saying that we must look closer at the evidence. 


Heisenberg

Chapter 4, Question 1 10/19/12

Knowledge and wisdom I believe have a love hate relationship. Meaning that they have differences within their relationship. I think that knowledge comes first and wisdom comes after. We must learn formulas, equations, fallacies, math, science, and other things, which are considered knowledge, in order to apply them to real life situations, which results in a gain of wisdom. As you can see we learn knowledge in order to apply it, therefore learning from our experiences. This experience can either be a positive or negative nevertheless wisdom is learned, which knowledge cannot do. In this way knowledge and wisdom both have differences and a relationship. As far as what we are learning in college, I believe it is both wisdom and knowledge. Looking at how I described these two subjects above we do both while at college because we attend class and socialize. In class we learn the formulas and equations, but in socializing we learn how to use those formulas and equations. In the end we are always learning, whether it is knowledge or wisdom. Lastly, the information age has brought about an easier way to acquire knowledge not necessarily wisdom.



Heisenberg

Chapter 4, Question 3 10/18/12

After reading this weeks chapter I found that the last topic discussed was the most interesting to me. This topic is Diffusion of Responsibility, which is defined as "the tendency, when in a large group, to regard a problem as belonging to someone else" (Boss. J, 122). At first that did not make sense to me but after I reread the section it was a lot clearer. To me this meant that as humans we tend to stray from situation that do not involve us when we are in the public spaces because it is not our business. I read the sections a second time and thought of a prefect example, which was that last weekend I saw a guy skating by me that fell straight onto his face and hands. This happened 10-15 feet away from me, yet as rude as it may seem I did know that guy nor was it my problem so I kept walking assuming he would get up or receive aid. This was on campus with many other that saw the incident so I felt like some one closer might help him. After reading this like many of you, I think, I see that this Diffusion happens in our lives too often. I feel like learning how better monitor this will really help us develop of critical thinking to new heights.



Heisenberg 

Chapter 3, Question 2 9/7/12

This week has been a long one because I had a fever from Tuesday night to Thursday night. I hate being sick so I was in a very sarcastic mood. As we have read in Chapter 3 Rhetorical Devices use psychological persuasion, rather then reason, to convince others to a accept a certain position. In order to persuade other there are tools used to do so and I used some of them this week. I am normally a sarcastic person but when I dont feel good I can take it over board. Sarcasm is defined as the use of ridicule, insults, taunting, and/ or caustic irony.
While I was in bed my roommate came into my room and asked me "lets go work out."  I was like "OH okay let me just JUMP out of bed and get ready quickly." His response was like "Okay see you in  a sec." I thought to myself he got the sarcasm since I was wrapped in my blankets with medicine on my bed stand. Obviously he did not because he came in 5 minutes later and was like "okay I am ready." I did not want to deal with him so I used another Rhetorical Device, which is called hyperbole.
Hyperbole is defined a rhetorical device that uses an exaggeration. I told him "I have MONO bro." He ran away and left me alone. These where situations this week where I used rhetorical devices.



Heisenberg

Chapter 3, Question 1 9/4/12

Sally Ride since a child presented great critical thinking skills, which is very rare. The things that we have now attributed to a critical thinker are Analytical Skills, Effective Communication, Research and Inquiry Skills, Flexibility and Tolerance for Ambiguity, Open-Minded Skepticism, Creative Problem Solving, Attention-Mindfulness and Curiosity, and finally Collaborative Learning. To say that she had mastered all these areas of critical thinking from this small exert would be false and therefore I would not be using my critical thinking skills. However, she does show attention, mindfulness and curiosity this is because she did notice how important critical think was and is so she double majored. She also was alert when NASA was looking for new astronauts, which is very important later in her life. In this she also I think showed Open-Minded Skepticism because she knew that there were very few women pursuing a career in NASA. This is what I saw her present in the small article about, but I know if I was given more about her life more of the critical thinking criteria would have been met.


Heisenberg

Chapter 3, Question 3 10/2/12

I want to get in to a discussion about language. Language is the main topic in this chapter and I believe it is something we all need to understand and master. In the beginning of this chapter there were 4 ways in which language was described, which are informative, directive, expressive, and ceremonial. Each of these atributes seems to be part of every language in the world with some exceptions. I found this every interesting because I have never though of language being so universal yet unique to its given speakers. Although every language fallows these rules the way in which it is used and spoken is different. This is why we have to master the 4 pieces in order to fallow any language we learn in the future. Being able to break down a sentence and its meaning is very helpful understanding what a person is asking you. It can either be information, a direction, an expression, or a ceremonial procedure. This is why being able to tell what the person is trying to say to us is important in understanding and using language.


Heisenberg.

Question 2, 9/30/12

I found these articles by Aquinas and Dawkins very funny because I have a friend who is very religious. Not that I judge him for it but he can't wrap his mind about my doubts about god and religion it self. His argument seems to be like Aquinas but I seem to side with Dawkins position more. So I do think his claims about evolution and belief to be incompatible. Honestly I think he would be speechless if he had just arrived due to a time machine. This is because he would have not lived though all those centuries and decades to see how we live and operate as a society. His time was much simpler and not as advanced as we have come. But say he did live all those years, I believe he would actually side with Dawkins. This is due to all the information and other innovative ideas human have come up with. So that is what I thought about if they were able to discuss on the issue.

Heisenberg

Question 1 9/29/12

This was a very interesting question because I really had to think about what my career calls for from a day to day basis. I am currently pursuing a career in Aviation Management, which is a job that will require a lot of critical thinking. As any manager can tell you, one deals with people daily and has to have a reasonable mind set. I do not think I have mastered generalization, deduction, imagination, nor spatial-temporal problem solving. However, I do believe that I am able to perform some of these things now but I will improve as situations arise when each of those components are needed. Overall I know my job will consist of many solutions and problem that I need to be able to solve and critically think of the best decision. My career is tough and gets a lot of heat from everyone to perform but with valuable knowledge that this book proves us with and teaches us it will be useful in my future. I honestly do not know if I have a strength but I know, as of now, that can perform each to a certain degree. I will learn as I gain knowledge I believe.


Heisenberg

Why are we so different? 9/28/12, Question #3

Hello Readers,

After reading Chapter 2, I was still very intrigued with the section titled "Gender, Age, and Reason". As most of you have, I have come across a typical relationship argument and we all know how those end. It seems that after all the fighting and bickering is done, we come to the conclusion that "they (the significant others) don't get us". As the book said we have stereotypes of how women and men think, which are that men think logically and use reason whereas women use emotion. This was at least what people thought for years but some how this notion is sometimes used today. However, I believe that although men and women can have critical thinking abilities the way they use reason is different. I think that men do tend to use facts and logic to argue something whereas women tend to bring up old emotions and situations. Although they are critically thinking i believe that the way they get to a given answer or response is different. This is also why I think that there are arguments between men and women. Not saying that women can't be great critical thinkers I just think they use reason in their minds differently. Those are my two sense about the subject. 

-Heisenberg

9/15/12 chapter 7, question 2

Cause and effect is when something happens because something else happened. Well at least that is how I took it. It can be positive or negative but never the less they go hand and hand. Dr. Novello has a big situation in 1988, which was that more teens were smoking cigarette.  However this is not the source of the problem nor where the kids to blame. When I broke down what she was trying to state was that  kids smoking more was due to the ads that were being targeted towards them that cause the increase. So I came up is the cause being the ads that were being pushed towards teen and the effect was more kids smoking. However, I felt like that wasn't the only cause and effect that I saw. I also saw that another cause was US. Senator Dr. Novello attention was drawn to the problem therefore causing her to change thing. The effect was that she pushed for education and band cigarette ad companies in promoting to the youth. This is how I think she used cause and effect inductive reasoning.


Heisenberg.

Chapter 7, Question 1

I want to talk about a generalization inductive argument, which I made this week. As you have read people fall into generalization easily due to a sample that they are familiar to.

Premise: All Mexicans I know can cook authentic dishes.
Premise: I was invited to my friends house for dinner and his mom is 100 percent Mexican.
Conclusion: Since my friends mom is Mexican she therefore knew how to make authentic meals.

I simply took a preexisting stereotype and made a generalization about my friends mother. I felt really bad after I read this chapter because I feel into an argument that was not truly representative of a population, rather I generalized the people I knew (my sample) and thought that represented all Mexican people. I was wrong to think that because when dinner came out she had prepared food from the east coast like crab-cakes, New England chowder, and much more. I was surprised and asked how she knew how to make this food being that she lived here in California. As it turns out she grew up in the east coast and she grew up with this type of food. I would have generalized that she grew up eating typical Mexican foods but it turned out that my assumption was wrong. I enjoyed the food and I felt bad that I had generalized her. This is the generalization inductive argument I gave this week.




Heisenberg.

9/14/12 Chapter 7, question 3

Hello Readers,

Today I want to focus on "Effect of Question Wording on Responses" a subject that is covered in this chapter. I want to first start by saying that this was really helpful to me because sometime during surveys I just answer what I think the pollsters' want. I have now come to realize thanks to this section that questions on surveys sometimes have that effect on people due to how they are worded. Pollsters' have one of three ways but I just want to focus on 2, which are Slanted question andPush poll. Lets start off by going into a slanted question, which is defined as "a question that is written to elicit a particular response"(Boss, 207). In other words the question has been written in such a way that it provokes you to respond a certain way. For example, if was question ask if gay marriage should be "prohibited"  will make some people mad or happy for the prohibition of gay marriage and would yield less responses. However, if instead of "prohibited" we used "a human right" then more people would be inclined to say yes it should be. The way we ask things really changes the way people react to it. The next way a question can be asked is by using the method called push poll, which states "a poll that starts by presenting the pollsters' views before asking a question" (Boss, 207). This literally mean an opinion or bias statement is stated before a question is asked. For example,  Do you believe there should be a law out lawing the use of fanny pack, or shouldn't there be? I obviously gave my opinion first before asking the question, since I dislike fanny packs. In this was pollsters' give their opinion before asking a question therefore, confusing the reader whether they should agree or not based on the pollsters' view. This was really helpful to me and I hope this was helpful if not give me suggestions of how this could have been better.


Heisenberg

9/9/12 Chapter 8, Question 3. What did I learn.

I want to concentrate on the text from the book Group Communication, Chapter 3. The reason why is because I like the way they approached the topic of leadership. Before reading this text when I would think of a leader I always assumed that he had to have 3 things. Those things that I thought made a leader were a strong voice, strong critical thinking, and strong authority. After reading the text however, I have come to find out that there are different types of leaders that approach leading differently. This has helped me asses what type of leader I was. The text broke down leaders as having one out four types of decision making styles. These four types were authoritarian, consultant, participative, and laissez-faire. I wil go one by one and trying to interpret them as I took them. Lets take a look at an Authoritarian leader, which makes decisions on his own with out the helps of his group. This in one hand is effective because it does not allow for excessive discussion on a given topic. Since the leader is ultimately deciding for the group. Along with positive of an authoritarian leader there are some drawback, which includes less input from the group and unhappy members. Next we move to a Consultive leader, which is a leader that takes his/her members opinion into consideration and decides a final decision based on the given opinions. This decision is once again up to the leader but it at least gives member a chance to speak. Nevertheless group members still do not like this style because some feel that their opinions did not even get consideration in the matter. In my opinion this is no better then an authoritarian leader. The third style of leader is one called Participative leadership, which is one where the leader works along side group members to reach a goal. Meaning that instead of just choosing or collecting opinions, which the two other styles do, in this style of leadership everyone works together to come to a certain goal. The drawback is that this requires time in order to work properly. The last style of leadership is called Laissez-Faire, which is a style where the leader has little to no input. Pretty much he does nothing and tells a group to solve a problem with no guidance nor input. This one is the most unsuccessful form of leadership. Now after reading this I have come to realize what kind of leadership my group will need to be successful for this upcoming group project.

Heisenberg.

9/7/12 Chapter 8, Question 2

When sister Sister Helen Prejean maintains that the death penalty is a violation of human dignity and is contrary to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, "who taught us to not to return hate for hate and evil for evil". I think that this Spiritual passage does not support nor oppose the death penalty, rather I think it suggest that if we return hate or evil then we are creating more hate and evil. So for those people support the death penalty what are they truly supporting? In my opinion I think that they are supporting death and that does not seems like justice, because rather then help or metal treatment supporters are voicing that it is okay to kill as long as a criminal has caused "hate or evil". Overall the passage came off to me as stop condoning the cycle of hate and evil. As for the deductive argument I am going to attempt so here goes: All Christians believe in Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Nazareth followed certain morals, therefore All Christians follow those same morals. This deductive argument then means that if you are a Christian then you have to believe or want to follow in Jesus of Nazareth moral beliefs like the spiritual passage. 






Heisenberg

9/6/12 Question 1: Holmes is a smart guy.

"When it comes to the art of reasoning, many people rely on opinion and unsupported assumptions. The difficulty, he maintains, is to detach the framework of undeniable fact from the embellishments of hearsay and reports." Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes was an incredible detective and one that used critical thinking at its best. Well at least that is how the author of the fictional character described him. Nevertheless, his statement does have a certain significance. I took the quote as people cannot distinguish FACTS from OPINION, but if they can find a way to critically differentiate one from the other then they have truly mastered "the art of reasoning. I also thought that when he said that when he stated "The difficulty, is to detach Undeniable fact from the Embellishment" meant that a person must be able to tell true facts from the extra added details that would make the story or argument more believable. The quote also reminded me about when people that say "Oh yeah last night was crazy man. So many girls were talking to me. You missed out on an amazing night". I thought about this because how much of the story is fabricated to make me believe him and how much of the story is true. Overall I thought Sherlock Holmes was trying to say keep your ears open for the truth and for the opinions of a persons argument or story.


Heisenberg

Third Blog 9/2/12 QUESTION 3

A huge part of an argument is made up of two parts that work hand and hand. One part being the premise, which is "a proposition in an argument that is supportes the conclusion". The second part is the conclusion, which is "the proposition in an argument that is supported on the bais of other proposition (this means backed up by a premise)". These two parts work directly with one another because the premise is trying to convince or provide proof for accepting a certain conclusion. I thought about it as the premise being a sort of wing man to the conclusion that is trying to get a date. Since the conclusion cannot pick up a lady by himself he needs the premise to be by his side to pick him up and highlight his atributes. The premise gives compliments and reasons to date the conclusion or at least give him a chance to talk. The only way the conclusion will get a date is if the premise gives it good support made up of facts not opinion because the premise (wingman) has to be sincere. This wingman however can have many different ways for supporting the conclusion, which can be either Descriptive premise, Prescriptive premise, Analogical Premise, or Definition premise. Descriptive premise means that the support is based on facts and evidence not opinion or bias views of things. Prescriptive premise is one that contain value statements like "we should stand tall and unite." An Analogical premise is one that uses analogies to compare two thing like "you are as beautiful as the full moon on a clear night." and finally we have Definition premise, which simply gives the dictionary definition of a word that can be interpreted in many ways. So next time make sure if your wingman(premise) is doing his job to back up your arguments conclusion.


Heisenberg-----

Second Blog (9/1/12) Question #1

President Barack Obama has an extremely hard job, which is to be able to critically think about every decision that he makes. He has to not only think of things on a personal level but on a presidential level as well. His beliefs might be different then what he decides to promote. This then alludes to what an amazing critical thinker he is. He does not give arguments of same sex marriage based on his opinion because if he did that then he would be criticized for making a decision for everyone, which is not his job. The President is supposed to be the face of our country and is suppose to up hold the countries beliefs. If he chose for us then the country would want to impeach him or riot. So for him to state that he is opposed to legalizing same sex marriage on a federal level means that he is not willing to make a decision on his own without the consent of the rest of the country. As an American citizen he might believe something else but that is personal and he knows that so he does not state that as his federal belief because he is just one man with one opinion not a whole country.

Obama also might agree with Nava and Dawidoff's argument that is "prohibiting same-sex marriage is a denial of the basic rights of gays and lesbians who wish to marry". This however, are just individuals not the whole country. Obama can take opinion and turn them into arguments because then his argument would be filled with bias and fallacies, which would ruin all credibility to his argument. I think Obama is waiting on more people like Nava ana Dawidoff's to voice their opinion on the topic and letting the country as a whole decide before making things legal or illegal. This is a clear demonstration of what an amazing critical thinker President Barack Obama is. 

First Blog 8/30/12 Question 2: I STOOD MY GROUND

Issue: Tell on a co-worker that consistently slacked off, left me with extra work, and left early. By the way he was my shift manager.

I hate being a tattle tale or even hearing someone else complain about others that slack off or cheat in the work place, cheat in school, or simply cheat in life. I have always been taught to mind your own business because they (cheaters or short cut takers) will get what they deserve. I have always lived with that state of mind, but while working for a high end hotel I came across someone that made me want to change my personal values. I studied (analyzed) his work habits and managing habits and came to the conclusion that he was skating by on my accomplishments and others success as well. This did not sit well with me, but of course having the belief that I did I wanted to step back and see what my options were. I compiled a list of reasons to tell on him and a list to not tell on him. The reason that I wanted to make a list is to make sure I was doing the right thing. On the list were things like: "I am new and could be fired", "I do not see how hard he works in the office", "He can fire me himself if he knew what I was planing", "I could become shift manager if he leaves", and there were many other reasons on that list. After much internal debate I decided to bring it up to our branch supervisor who had told us if we wanted to talk he would keep things confidential. I went up to our supervisor and not only told him what was going on but also came with evidence, since I knew he might ask how I knew these things. I gave him proof of the mess he did not clean up, told him to check his clock out card, and to check his messy work place. I knew I was risking a lot by bringing this up, but I had thought about how to approach the situation and was going to see it through. At the end things worked out for me but I really had to analyze and weight the pros and cons of my decision to tell on someone. This was probably one of the hardest things to do because once I set the plan in motion there was no going back. I had to really use all my critical thinking skills to pull of a successful argument of why he (shift manager) did not belong at the hotel.


-Heisenberg

Introducing Myself

Hello Everyone,
My name is Alfredo Lopez, Heisenberg is my blogspot username, I am a fourth year Aviation Management Major. My looks maybe deceiving because as you can see I look of asian descent  but sadly I'm not. I am 100% mexican. I have attended state all four years and I have loved every semester that has come and gone. This is actually my second communication class that I have taken. The first class I took was COMM 40 and I had a blast. I went into that class with an open mind and came out taking 3rd place in parliamentary speaking. Not my goal but I guess I did learn a few things over that semester. That is my goal for this class also, which is to just absorb and learn new ways of communicating with others. I am looking forward to this class and hopefully meeting some of you. Have a great ladies and gentlemen.


Sincerely, Heisenberg