Saturday, October 23, 2010
Needs more help in details.
I must say that the book we are reading for class is very well written and every chapter has great examples and helps explain a lot. But if I had to choose a chapter that I felt could have been explained better it would be chapter 6 on Compound claims. When they define contradictory of an or claim and contradictory or a an claim. They used A and B to define them and I found it to be a little confusing what A and B were. If they used an example of what each letter stood for, I'd understand it a lot better if it were explain what A and B were. In the book they define contradictory of an or claim as A or B contradictory not A and Not B. I read a web page that said that many people who believe in claims with a lack of evidence is usually people who have wishful thinking. This is a tactic of fallacy that discredits people who have a lack of proof in their claims and or statements does that. (http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you about the way the book is written. The language and the diction the author uses is very straightforward and clear, it makes it so much easier for me as a student to understand. Many times I get distracted or I can’t finish reading the textbook, because the wording is so complicated and boring, but when I read this book, I feel like Epstein is talking directly to me, like he’s having a conversation with me. I also think that what you said about compound claims in chapter 6 is true. It was a little confusing, and I admit I did additional research as well on the internet to help me better understand the topic.
ReplyDelete