Lack of Information

"This administration is not anti-German, as it has been alleged. Germany is a great country. It has contributed immensely to the world's artistic treasury. Goethe and Schiller made magnificent contributions to literature, and Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms did the same in music."

(#14, p. 167, Hurley)

This question stood out to me in class. I would say that it "misses the point", as simply describing great German artists does not defend "[the] administration" to be "pro-German". However, I noticed that this phrase had to be taken out of context to commit a fallacy; given the proper surrounding information, a statement like this might be viable. For example, if the problem had noted that the administration was for an arts council, and that the speaker was the lead member of said council, then his admission that there are many great German artists would have been on track. However, it still wouldn't be much of a convincing argument, as it still does not note whether the entire administration, including all members, feel the same way as the speaker. This led me to think that from time to time fallacies can be commit by accident due to a lack of relevant information.

Does this attempt eliminate the fallacy?
Does my reasoning support the notion that committing fallacies by accident is easy?

Chemotherapy v. Dichloroacetic Acid

These arguments are from an anonymous internet source. However, the claims made are backed by studies done at the University of Alberta. Both the link to the argument and the link to the studies can be found below.

Argument 1:
P1: Chemotherapy is effective in 2% of cancer patients.
P2: Dichloroacetic Acid is effective in 80% of cancer patients.
C: Dichloroacetic Acid is more effective than Chemotherapy.

Argument 2:
P1: Chemotherapy and subsequent treatments add approx. $1 trillion to our economy each year.
P2: Dichloroacetic Acid cannot be patented and is therefore not profitable.
P3: Running trials on Dichloroacetic acid would cost approx. $1 billion.
[Implied Premise 3: Pharmaceutical Companies, as companies, are concerned with profits.]
[Implied Premise 4: Dichloroacetic Acid is more effective than Chemotherapy (see above).]
C: Dichloroacetic Acid, although more effective than Chemotherapy, is not available in America because Pharmaceutical companies intentionally withhold better treatment options due to the potential loss of revenue.

What do you think of this argument? Is it simply that they are that greedy, or could there be other factors at work here that the author is skipping over to make his point?

Argument

Study

Nick Zangwill on Music, Metaphor and Emotion

The argument made by the author, Zangwill, makes in the original text is much longer and more in depth than this argument, but this is the version that is most condensed while still entailing all of the necessary descriptions.

P1: Emotion requires a reason.
P2: Feelings do not require reason.
P3: That which is inanimate (i.e., music), cannot posses, arouse or represent an emotion.
P4: We often relate emotions to feelings that we cannot describe to be able to express them in language.
P5: Music generally evokes feelings in the listener.
C: Music cannot possess emotions, but we often use emotional terminology to express the feelings that music can evoke.

Given that the definitions of emotions and feelings are separate (the author persistentantly claims that they are different, but they are often confused nonetheless), this argument is valid, as it describes a necessary difference in definition to establish a further point (that theorists must speak purely metaphorically when relating emotions to music).

Why Men and Women Cannot Be Just Friends

I have recently read an internet article about inter-gender relationships which argued that the differences between how men and women treat each other sexually is rooted in genetics. The article was written on September 28, 2010, by Clifford N. Lazarus, Ph.D. While I am not saying yet whether or not I agree with the Dr. Lazarus's argument, I believe this excerpt includes the majority of the important points:

"Within these boundaries of gender generalizations, the vast majority of post-pubescent, heterosexual men will invariably have a sexual desirability "reflex" upon seeing a female of reproductive age. Thus the immediate discrimination that a male will make when encountering a female is whether or not he'd like to have sex with her. While some women might acknowledge this sexual "reflex" too, it is likely that they can quickly get past it and focus on the non-sexual aspects of the male with whom they're relating.

The reasons for these phenomena are inextricably linked to our species' evolution. On the one hand, sperm is physiologically cheap, extremely plentiful, and constantly replenished. Therefore, the more often and diversely a male spreads his sperm the more evolutionally successful he'll be. Ova, on the other hand, are very precious, metabolically expensive, and can not be replenished (a woman is born with all the eggs she'll ever have).

What's more, women must assume the physical, emotional and metabolic demands of pregnancy. Hence, unlike most men who will gladly provide their sperm with little thought about it, evolution has shaped most women to be protective of their eggs and relatively discriminating of their sexual partners.

Thus women are more able to move beyond the immediate sexual attraction inherent in inter-gender relationships so they can more thoroughly determine the overall suitability of a potential mate. Men, it seems, often have no such long-term agenda so the "one track mind" of sexual interest persists much longer.

In general, then, one can say that men are very sexually "reflexive" while women are apt to be more sexually "reflective." "

I find that there are actually several sub-arguments within this excerpt which try to prove his overall point, listed in standard form here:

Sub Argument 1:

P1: Sperm is physiologically cheap, extremely plentiful, and constantly replenished.

P2: Spreading sperm diversely is important to our species' evolution. [Implied Premise]

C1: Therefore, the more often and diversely a male spreads his sperm the more evolutionarily successful he'll be.

Sub Argument 2:

P1: Ova are very precious, metabolically expensive, and can not be replenished.

P2: Women must assume the physical, emotional and metabolic demands of pregnancy.

C2: Evolution has shaped most women to be protective of their eggs and relatively discriminating of their sexual partners.

Once his arguments for these points are made, Dr. Lazarus then goes on to use the two conclusions as the premises for his next arguments, where he attempts to draw two separate new conclusions from the results of the last arguments:

Sub Arguments 3 and 4:

P1: The more often and diversely a male spreads his sperm the more evolutionarily successful he'll be.

P2: Evolution has shaped most women to be protective of their eggs and relatively discriminating of their sexual partners.

P3: The differences in genetics cause men and women to think of each other differently in respect to sexual desires. [Implied Premise]

C1: Thus women are more able to move beyond the immediate sexual attraction inherent in inter-gender relationships so they can more thoroughly determine the overall suitability of a potential mate.

C2: Men, it seems, often have no such long-term agenda so the "one track mind" of sexual interest persists much longer.

I personally find that at this point his argument is starting to assume quite a few generalizations, and is weakly inductive (He admits in his article that there are exceptions to the case and that he is generalizing).

Turning his conclusions once again into the premises for his next argument, Dr. Lazarus makes his main point:

Overall Argument:

P1: Women are more able to move beyond the immediate sexual attraction inherent in inter-gender relationships so they can more thoroughly determine the overall suitability of a potential mate.

P2: Men often have no such long-term agenda so the "one track mind" of sexual interest persists much longer.

C: In general, then, one can say that men are very sexually "reflexive" while women are apt to be more sexually "reflective."

I would have to say that this an inductive argument and that it is strong because the inference is more likely than 50-50 (presuming the strength of the genetic research that made such generalizations). However, I am taking the word of the author because of his status of a Ph.D. in Psychology as well as being the Clinical Director at the Lazarus Institute. I believe he is qualified to speak on the subject, and therefore what he says should be taken seriously. I would not necessarily say that it is cogent myself, because I do not know for sure that the assumptions he makes about the genetic research are true. However, his status implies that he is aware of such research, and therefore it is likely the premises are true, making this article a cogent inductive argument when coming from Dr. Lazarus himself.

What do you think of Dr. Lazarus's argument? Is he committing any fallacies? Is he overgeneralizing? Did I make a mistake in my presentation of his premises and conclusions? I'd like to hear what anyone has to say.

Full Article:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/think-well/201009/why-men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends

Article stating the credentials of Dr. Lazarus:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/clifford-n-lazarus-phd

Introduction for the Semester

Hello, I am Sean Simmons, a Junior at MCLA, who is currently majoring in Fine and Performing Arts with a Concentration in Music, as well as a minor in philosophy. I have been playing guitar for eight years and studying music theory for five. I hope to someday be a music teacher, for either advanced music theory or private lessons in guitar. I have decided to study philosophy while at MCLA because I believe that it is helpful in all disciplines to have both good reasoning and an open mind, two skills philosophy helps one to attain.
I hope that by taking this class, I will begin to develop those reasoning skills, that they will help me grow as a person, and that I will become more efficient and thoughtful about my chosen profession.