Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Rally Fallacy

Facebook is a great place to find funny images or post from friends. Most of the pictures I find really funny are comics that friends have found around the internet. These images can sometimes tie into what we were just discussing in English: Argument Fallacies. This image is a great comic about two such fallacies. The comic actually points out the two fallacies that are being committed by the cheerleader

The first is the fallacy of Ad Hominem, which is a personal attack against an opponent to divert attention away from the real issue. The cheerleader is declaring that their school, Lakeview High, is the best, implying that the other school, North High, is worse than they are. This is used to rally the Lakeview school about how good they are but instead just compares them to another school. The attack is used instead of rallying the school about its own accomplishments.

The second, more prominent argument fallacy is Begging the Question, which is when the argument begs the question about the determining factors. This mainly occurs when the evidence behind the claim is subjective. The crowd points this fallacy out to the cheerleader by giving her examples of people from the other school doing really great things. They notice that she has nothing but opinion to back up her claim and they question how she can truly say they are better.

There is also the possibility that the crowd is making a fallacy in their argument. They may be committing a Hasty Generalization because they are using a sample population of only a few people to make assumptions about the whole school. Lakeview may indeed be better, even if there are a few good people on their team. The comic is a very funny look at something as common as a school rally and how even then fallacies can be committed.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

12 Angry Men, 2 Great Arguments

If you are looking for a movie that demonstrates great arguments look no further than 12 Angry Men. The movie is filled with ethos, pathos and logo. Here are two scenes for 12 Angry Men that show such arguments.

The first scene shows the older man, Juror 9, answering to the fact that he changed his vote to not guilty. As he states, he actually still believes that the kid probably is guilty but he respects that Juror 8 is standing up to the other men. Juror 9 wants to hear more about why Juror 8 thinks they should not vote guilty because 8 has bravely gone against everyone to talk about the case and not simply vote guilty. A person would not stand to this kind of ridicule if they did not have a good reason. ("I respect his motives" - Juror 9 about 8) This shows that 9 has changed his mind due to his respect of Juror 8's ethos. However there is probably some pathos involved in that to as he seems to feel that if this man is willing to fight for a fair trial for the boy that he should help too. The old man also projects ethos, being the oldest (implied wisdom) member of the jury.

The second clip shows an argument about how a switchblade knife would be used. The argument is made by Juror 5, a man who grew up in the slums. His argument is logos based but it also carries the weight of 5's ethos as someone from the slums (just like the kid on trial) and as someone who knows a lot about switchblade knifes. The argument sways quite a few jurors as a result because of both the logos about how to hold a knife like that and how it would be used to stab someone in the heat of the moment, supported by the ethos of the person arguing it.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

The Influence of Technology and Information


After creating an Infosphere I was surprised how many sites and inputs of information I receive, many on a daily basis. Technology, primarily the Internet, is a huge factor in my life and has a large influence on my identity. For the most part the sites that comprise my Infosphere either help me stay in contact with others or inform me of news. I feel that I have a pretty even split of sites that sustain my views and ideas and others that challenge them. However, I am sure that this is a very biased view and in truth, there are probably more sites that I will agree with in my Infosphere. However, I am constantly learning more about the topics that my sites cover, such as news and movie information.
            I feel like I am attached to my technological devices such as my computer or phone because I have a huge amount of personal information stored on them. My computer is especially a major possession for me. I also treat my phone very well and I like to find a good case for it, something that expresses me so that when I use it I can show it off. However, I would say that while these may have influences on my identity, the information gleamed from them is a much larger factor. I get excited or enjoy talking about something that I just learned from a site or just saw on a video, not about my computer or phone. These are simply devices that enable me to be constantly connected and therefore constantly updated on the world around me.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Attempting Social Site Ethos

Social networking sites like Facebook are built to allow people to communicate with friends; post photos and meets new friends with similar interests. However, one danger is that on a site people are not always who they say they are and it is tough to know sometimes who to trust. The question is whether it is possible to build ethos, or credibility, about who you are. This goes beyond just being who you say you are, it includes people believing you when you post things and being able to trust you.

First is making sure people can believe you are the person you say you are. This is normally pretty easy and sites like facebook can help with that by such things as the “mutual friends.” Most likely if you have 20 or more friends in common with a person then they are probably who they say they are or someone should have noticed by now.

Second is trying to establish that you know about something that you want people to be able to trust you on. Social sites are all about posting and commenting and so you want people to know that when you post about something you are not just making stuff up. Sometimes the info section of your profile can make this appeal to ethos. I am a friend with the Horn Prof. on facebook and her info section says that she is the Horn Prof. at the college so if she posts something about French Horns or music I know that what she posted is credible. Most other appeals to ethos take time such as other people agreeing with you enough of something or posting things over and over that continue to be correct. Ethos is something that is tough to build on social sites.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

In Ben Agger’s Words

        The first chapter of Ben Agger’s The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology acts as an overview of the book and as an introduction to some of the main ideas that Agger will discuss. The title of the first chapter is “Everyday life in Our Wired World” and Agger argues that the new level of interconnectivity that people experience everyday, primarily through the Internet, is forcing us to adjust our view of society. He begins by talking about the virtual self, which he describes as “the person connected to the world and to others through electronic means such as the Internet, television, and cell phones” (1). Agger declares that he is going to try and push sociology beyond its borders to discuss self, society and culture in this new age. Agger believes that self is most important, and that sociology must deal with what he calls “the worldliness of selves – their ability to go anywhere/anytime, their saturation with popular culture, their penchant for travel, their tendency to change jobs, spouses, their bodies” (4). Agger points out that sociology is changing and this change is most concerned with self and social structure in this interconnected time.
        Agger notes that while many things are still the same since he grew up in the sixties, such as careers, divorces, and watching television, there are glaring differences primarily around the pressure and constant businesses pushed on kids.  Agger declares that he has “skepticism about the potential of new information technologies” (11). He points out that technology and affluence have not freed people from work; instead people have busier lives, larger debts and more pressure. He points out how the wired world is “compressing time and leaving people scattered and restless” (19). While Agger outlines some beneficial things that technology can do, such as spreading education or recreating a public sphere for people to be contribute to, he focuses more on the downsides it could cause. The main one that Agger details is the fact that the information superhighway could discipline people, effectively removing their free will. Agger discusses that idea that “to consume and conform have become ‘second nature,’ not exposed to clear thought and careful consideration but operating at an unconscious level” (14). Agger discusses that people need to develop practical reason, allowing them to accomplish things even in the face of uncertainty, as a key to living in the wired world. Agger does not believe he has very good practical reason but also argues that the way.
Agger talks about the different themes of sociology by examining how people live their everyday lives to see how technology is affecting it. First, he looks at how structures like culture, family, government and the economy impact peoples’ lives. Agger argues, citing a phenomenologist named Husserl, that everyday life is a huge collection of experiences that are more powerful that theoretical experiences. He states that people do not focus on the familiar thing is our lives but instead on the new experiences. This is known as the natural attitude. According to Agger, “philosophy needs to perceive things from the vantage of the natural attitude, thus learning from people’s ordinary experiences of the world” (27). Agger discusses the different types of government that control us and that he  feels it is simply the impermanence of capitalism. He argues that it has only survived this long because “it is preferable, more practical system and because socialism has proven to be a dismal failure” (24). Agger discusses the different views of Marx and Weber on what was the main cause(s) for how a person’s life would be. Agger argues that Weber’s three dimensional model, containing class, status and party, allowed him to go deeper into how things like salary, prestige and political affiliation could affect people’s lives then Marx’s unidimensional model, which only centered around class.
Agger wraps up his first chapter discussing what will come in later chapters in his book, namely some new models of sociology that the current study could evolve towards. Agger also discusses why other models like positivism, which he describes as the use of the scientific method to discover truths in sociology may not be the direction to go. He points out that, overall, the Internet and all new connectivity technology is simultaneously making life harder and easier at the same time. Agger argues that we have “access to more information and stimulation than ever before in history, and yet that most people are less well educated than their counterparts a generation ago” (39). He drives home the point that this ability of society to have more information and yet less use of it is the reason sociology is having to change and it is a direct outcome of this new age. Agger believes that this wired world people live in today is changing many, if not all, parts of society and therefore sociology has to change along with it.

Work Cited
Agger, Ben. “Everyday Life in Our Wired World” The Virtual Self: a Contemporary Sociology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2004. 1-41. Print.