Dreams and Problem Solving

I think what I found most interesting in this chapter was the part about how we can sometimes use reason in our dreams in order to solve our problems. The text explained that, although reasoning is usually viewed as a conscious activity, that much of reasoning is unconscious and automatic. Studies are also showing how dreams tend to take on a form of reasoning that helps solve visual problems. This is but another way in which using reason can happen without our knowing it. No one can really control their dreams, and yet in our dreams we unconsciously use reasoning. It seems to me that reasoning, at its core, comes naturally to people. Although there are instances in which we need to will ourselves and perhaps others to see reason, more often than not there are times when we use it without even knowing. I find that to be very interesting.

Question 1 (Strengths)

Identifying your strengths is important in choosing a career because, despite what you may want, not every career option is a suitable one. My strengths have always been compassion and empathy. I’ve always been able to easily put myself into someone else’s shoes and see the situation from their point of view. I’ve tried, when arguing with someone, to see it their way first and see if I can find some sort of common ground. More often than not I am able to find something we can both agree on. I think this is a valuable strength to have when pursuing a career in creative writing. An author who wrote a novel in which every character shared his qualities and way of thinking would likely have a difficult time selling it. You need to be able to step outside of yourself and into the mind of another in order to create a truly dynamic character. 

Question 2 (Aquinas vs Dawkins)

Dawkins claims suggest that evolution and a belief in God are incompatible. He also believes that Aquinas’ claims are little more than double talk that dances around the same point. Although I can respect the depth of Dawkins reasoning and the precision in which he tries to pick a part what Aquinas had said centuries before, I can’t agree with him saying that evolution and a belief in God are incompatible. I’ve never found it difficult to believe in both God and evolution. I see how some people feel the need to choose one or the other, but never quite understood why it wasn’t possible for both concepts to exist together. Why not believe in a God who works through evolution and science? If Aquinas had heard Dawkins argument, he would have likely quoted one of his proofs and tried to debunk Dawkins line of reasoning. Nevertheless, I do think that Aquinas and Dawkins both made the mistake of trying to use reason to explain the existence of God. God is a matter of faith and faith isn’t always rational.

Analogies

The concept that I want to go over this week is the proper use of an analogy. An analogy is based on a comparison between two or more things or events, and it often contain words or phrases such as like, as, similarly, or compared to. There are several ways in which analogies can be used. The can be used as a teaching mechanism by showing us how to do something better by comparing it to a similar experience. They can be used as descriptive devices in which you can help someone better understand something by comparing it to something they may be more familiar with. They are often used in literature in the form of metaphors. There are many different and practical uses for analogies in everyday life. I, personally, love to use analogies in a conversation if the opportunity presents itself. They make communicating easier and more colorful.

Question 2 (Antonia Novello)

Antonia Novello used cause-and-effect inductive reasoning when trying to devise a solution for the public health problems of AIDS, violence, alcohol and tobacco. She noted that, after the release of the Joe Camal ads of 1988, more teens and children began to smoke. She reasoned that the Joe Camal ads were the cause and a raised number of children and teens smoking was the effect. This is inductive because it deals in probability rather than necessity. It was not certain that the ads were the sole reason for children and teens deciding to smoke. However, in using cause-and-effect inductive reasoning, she was able to see that the Joe Camal ads were most likely at fault and therefore act accordingly. She worked to ban cigarette and alcohol ads that targeted youths as a result. I think this is another great example of how being able to create proper arguments, be they inductive or deductive, can be useful in life.

Inductive Argument (Question 1)

Unlike a deductive argument, which claims that its conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, an inductive argument claims that its conclusion probably follows from the premises. Inductive arguments are thus classified as stronger or weaker rather than true or false. I used an inductive argument just this morning when I was trying to decide when I should leave for school. I considered that, I take the highway every morning. Every morning I am stuck in traffic. Chances are I will be stuck in traffic this morning. With that in mind, I left my apartment twenty minutes earlier than usual and was not thrown off by the morning traffic. This is an inductive argument because it is based in probability, not necessity. There was still a chance that there would be no traffic at all and I would arrive much earlier rather than right on time. It also had key words such as chances are in its conclusion.

Syllogisms

What I thought was interesting in this chapter were all the different types of arguments and syllogisms that were mentioned. A syllogism is a form of deductive argument that presents two supporting premises which are followed by a conclusion. An example would be; all men are mortal, all fathers are men, therefore all fathers are mortal. I thought it was interesting how the book seemed to break down the deductions we make. I never really thought about how knowing one thing for certain can lead to us knowing several other things through association and reasoning. Of course, as the chapter went on to explain, not all premises are correct which makes their syllogisms invalid. The books give the example argument; all men are tall people, tom cruise is a man, therefore tom cruise is a tall person. This would be an example of how one false premise can make a syllogism invalid. The incorrect premise of all men are tall people is what ruined the argument.