These arguments differ based on the amount of information on which they are founded.
5)
Extensive definitions identify collections of objects/concepts to which the word applies: "Bears, sheep, rats, and humans are all mammals." An ostensive definition occurs in gesture, providing the same example set but with total ambiguity: "That, that, and that are all mammals." A quasi-ostensive definition adds description to the definition, but ambiguity is still retained: "These hair-covered creatures who give birth live are mammals."
Journal
I learned a fair amount about how to examine arguments from the lessons this week. I already pay a fair amount of attention to the news, but reexamining stories that I had already developed an awareness of...
The global warming debate, for example, is highly politically charged, with each side accusing the other of using false or empty science to prove their point, but in reality both groups have incomplete information that they are using to try and convince others of their
position. They are able to make logical sense out of the amount of evidence they have, but the evidence does not actually lead to any logically certain conclusions. The same is true for almost all political debates, including those centering on federal regulation of various industries -- there is no certainty to any outcome, and thus the foundational logic upon which all such arguments both for and against regulation is inherently shaky.
