Sally Ride

In the article that describes Sally Ride it tells how she is such a celebrated critical thinker because of her skills and the application of these skills toward her career in NASA. The qualities that she seems to demonstrate in this career are analytical skills, effective communication, research and inquiry skills, and creative problem solving.  

Her analytical skills are shown when so many people are there who undoubtedly vouch for the skills that she has when she is problem solving. When it comes to her skills in effective communication they are evident because Ride graduated with a double major one of those being English. Also she was made the capcom of the very first and also second shuttle launches. This shows how well she communicates and it shows that she was recognized by NASA for these skills. When it comes to research and inquiry skills it is not really shown in the article that she has these skills but to have graduated with a double major from a prestigious school they are a necessity. She demonstrates creative problem solving because as said in the article that she can see to the heart of things and in order to see to the heart of problems you need to see things from all perspectives and that is a good demonstration of creative problem solving. All of these skills combine to show that Ride is someone who truly exemplifies the skills of critical thinking.     

Inductive arguments

The main focus of the reading this week was inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are arguments that are not always true; they simply can be more true or less true. This contrasts with deductive argument in which you argue something that you can support by truthful evidence is indeed true. In everyday life I believe that inductive arguments are less effective ways of arguing. However, for the most part they are used more frequently.

Like if you are trying to pick a car out. Honda Civics are reliable cars so you decide to get one because they have such a good reputation for being that way, then six months later you’re in a shop because seals broke on the radiator making the inductive argument of all civics being reliable less true because your car is not reliable. I personally would have tried a deductive argument about the cars reliability looking at that car itself and looking at all the parts on the car. Although, inductive arguments are good tools that you should be able to use because in certain situations it is the only argument that you can use. Like when picking out a birthday present for a friend. There is no way of telling if they will like what you get them but as a friend you should know kind of what their taste is so you can pick a present based on the likes of the person and figuring out if the person is more likely to like one thing more than the other.    

Aquinas and Dawkins

I believe that in the case of Aquinas’s response to Dawkins if he were alive today would be alive today would be an illogical one. However, I may only believe this because I don’t believe in god. That being said there are many perspectives about the existence of a god or gods and others who believe in his or her existence may see Aquinas’s initial argument as being valid but I do not.

                If Aquinas had a chance to respond to Dawkins I think he would argue that the regression of god is not possible because that regression would lead to a true god and the other is not god. Or he may also argue that god was made too and the regression of god is his or her creator. However these are just assumptions based on the reading, I was not raised in a religious family so I don’t know if these are valid points to people who do believe. In my opinion, if there is or was a god and these rules did affect god then that would lead me to believe that Aquinas could thank that the creation of god was another powerful being who made him and that may be the father of god, but honestly this is a difficult question for me to answer since I don’t know about the beliefs of the origin of god or the beliefs of whether god is the last step in the regression of people who had to start the motion of others.  

Reasoning

The type of reasoning that I typically use in everyday life is thinking in the long term kind of way. I always think of what will happen in the future no matter what, I even try not to but it never works but I do. This kind of thinking can distract me because something as simple as my boyfriend not liking fruit pies makes me think of if we have a family together in the future and during the holidays it’s going to take so much more time to make a cream pie. I know a little strange but it’s how I think.

On the other hand this kind of thinking can really help me in my future career aspirations. I have always wanted to be a vet and in this career there are many different types of vet and I personally want to be an exotic animal vet. This type mostly deals with animals that you would see in zoos like tigers and monkeys. When doing this job it is very important to think of what the animal will be doing, for instance if a tiger breaks its leg then I would need to take more care in fixing it and making sure it sets correctly because when that tiger is rehabilitated it will need to be able to climb up trees and be able to pounce to catch the pray they are after. So thinking in the long is a very helpful tool that I will use a lot when I become a vet.

Organizational Communication

Organizational communication is a type of communication used by organizations. It is defined as, “the exchange of messages between organization members or among members of different organizations”. When you use this type of communicating you are really using a wide range of different communication types except you are incorporating different skills so that you can appeal to the type of organization you are communicating within or to.

In my opinion this seems to just be a type of formal communication that is directed towards businesses instead of just average people. This seems to be a very effective type of communicating when you want to seem more like you are professional like within a workplace while communicating with a boss or even just a person in a higher position than you your self are. There may be a time or multiple times in every person’s life where they are required to communicate to an organization, learning the skills of how to do it properly is a must if you wish to be taken seriously or even if you wish to get into higher positions within a company.     

Smoking among the youth

Dr. Antonia Novello is known as a "medical problem solver" she is known for the different skills she possesses for dealing with problems and finding a way to reduce the problem or stop it all together. 
In the article "Outside the Box" it is said that Dr. Antonia Novello helped to bring down the numbers of children and teens smoking in the 1980s. She wanted to help so she tried to find a major cause for the rapid increase. She need up finding that Cammel cigarette commercials had some of the commercials directed toward the youth in the country. Dr. Novello saw this as one of the major causes for the rapid increase in child and teen smoking. She worked to stop all of the cigarette commercials that were directed toward the youth to try to lower the number of children and teen smoking rates. 
Her efforts were cause and effect reasoning because she went out to find a cause for the increase of youth smoking but was not sure if it was indeed the problem. The effect in the situation is that children Nd teen agers smoke cigarets. This is inductive reasoning because she was not sure that it was indeed the reason that the increase was happening. 

Inductive reasoning

Not too long ago I had to use the inductive reasoning method to figure out a situation. In this situation I was going to school and I was trying to catch up to the bus by driving to the next stop that it was going to make. The distance between these stops is about ten to fifteen miles so it was possible that I would catch up to the bus very quickly. However, I was taking a different road than the one that it first starts out on so I did not see if I had already passed it or if it was in front of me. After driving for a little while I didn't see the bus like I usually do as I pass it. In my head I was trying to figure out what this meant, if the bus had passed me already because on occasion the bus does leave early and this has happened before. On the other hand I could have passed the bus a long time ago not seeing it because we started on different roads. Thinking about it, I decided that the latter would probably be true because I didn't leave that much later than the bus should have and the way I go is faster. As I drive I am looking at the time and it appears that I should be at the stop before the bus but as I see the stop I also see the bus leaving, it did leave early and I did miss it, I was wrong. 
Premiss one: the bus had left early and it was far ahead of me. 
Premiss two: I beat the bus by going the faster way at first and I was far ahead of it.
 Conclusion: I must be in front of the bus beaches I took the faster way in the beginning. 
In the end I was wrong and that resulted in me going slower not going faster to catch the bus.