Heather Gennette

Homework 1 & 2
IDS 802: Ways of Knowing in Comparative Perspective

PART I: STATEMENT OF THIRD HYPOTHESIS

H3. The flight crew devised a plan to retaliate against Cooper while waiting for the

ransom money to arrive. They grabbed his briefcase with the bomb while he was

busy tying the money to himself. There was a physical battle between two of the

pilots and Cooper, which led to Cooper's untimely demise. Instead of landing the

plane, the pilots and the flight attendant decided to leave a small sum of cash

attached to Cooper's body and pushed him out of the aircraft at the approximate

time they were flying over the Lake Merwin. They used the second parachute to

weigh his body down so that it would sink to the bottom of the lake. The flight

crew vowed to never speak of what happened and split what was left of the

money.

PART II: COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF HYPOTHESES

H1. The man known as D.B. Cooper landed in Lake Merwin and drowned, unable to

disentangle himself from his parachute straps and rigging quickly enough in the

frigid waters. The adhesives with which he strapped the money to his body wore

out before the rubber bands so that some of the money flowed downstream, still

held together in bundles by the rubber bands, washing up and then becoming

covered by sand on Tena Bar, on the Columbia River. The authorities missed his

body and parachute in their searches of the lake, which was like looking for a

needle in a haystack.

A. Simplicity
 Of all of the hypotheses, this is the most simple and least complex. There are fewer

assumptions than the other hypotheses making it favorable to Ockham’s Razor. The

series of events that took place seem very likely given the weather conditions,

Cooper’s attire, and the fact that there was no trace of him after he jumped from the

plane.

B. Comprehensiveness

Given the facts listed above under simplicity, this would make H1 the most general

hypothesis. It is by far the broadest and most realistic hypothesis.

C. Coherence

This would be consistent with general behaviors, given the circumstances. It is likely

that if Cooper had landed in a cold lake with a parachute, he would have drowned. It

is unknown what could have happened to the money or how some of it ended up on

the beach.

D. Testability

With today’s technology, I think this hypothesis could be looked at again. It is by far

the most easily testable hypothesis given for this particular situation.

H2. The man known as D.B. Cooper was really a Soviet Russian agent. He never really

parachuted from the plane. Instead, the plane landed on a rural airstrip near

Seattle, where “Cooper” got off and other Soviet Russian agents hypnotized the

crew so that they would fly on to Reno and afterwards believe that Cooper

lowered the stairs and parachuted over Southern Washington state. The Soviet

agents threw all of the ransom money into the Columbia River so that Americans

would discover some of it decades later and become more confused about what
 really happened. The real purpose of this Soviet Russian act of espionage was to

get the $200,000 in ransom money, which they needed to fix several potholes in

the streets of Moscow.

A. Simplicity

Out of all the hypotheses, this is by far the least simple and most complex. There is

an extraordinary amount of additional assumptions and strange contingencies (e.i the

flight crew being hypnotized by Soviet Russian agents and needing ransom money to

fix potholes) that make this hypothesis very strange.

B. Comprehensiveness

The strange contingencies above also make the hypothesis less comprehensive.

Another statement made in the hypothesis was that the Soviet Russian Agents threw

ALL of the money into the Columbia River but then went on to say that they needed

that money to fix potholes, which seems inconsistent.

C. Coherence

Again, the hypothesis is inconsistent with usual patterns of behavior.

D. Testability

H2 is vacuous. It doesn't fit together and seems to contradict itself. The many wild

assumptions would make this very difficult to test.

H3. The flight crew devised a plan to retaliate against Cooper while waiting for the

ransom money to arrive. They grabbed his briefcase with the bomb while he was

busy tying the money to himself. There was a physical battle between two of the

pilots and Cooper, which led to Cooper's untimely demise. Instead of landing the

plane, the pilots and the flight attendant decided to leave a small sum of cash
 attached to Cooper's body and pushed him out of the aircraft at the approximate

time they were flying over the Lake Merwin. They used the second parachute to

weigh his body down so that it would sink to the bottom of the lake. The flight

crew vowed to never speak of what happened and split what was left of the

money.

A. Simplicity

There are more assumptions than H1, but it seems less complicated and more realistic

than H2. It is inferior to H1 by the Occam's razor test of simplicity due to its

numerous additional assumptions.

B. Comprehensiveness

This hypothesis is less comprehensive than H1 and arguably H2. There is nothing

that explains why the flight crew chose to take the money and hide the murder.

Unlike H2, that did state why the Soviet Russian Agents needed the ransom money.

C. Coherence

Parts of this hypothesis seem entirely plausible. The flight crew could have had the

ability to fight back against Cooper. The second part of the hypothesis appears non-

standard and out of the ordinary.

D. Testability

In the story, it does not say that the flight crew was questioned about the event.

Should this hypothesis have been tested, there would need to be extensive

questioning of what happened. Each of them would have come away with nearly

$50,000 a person, which should have been easily traced because the bills were

marked.
PART III: COMPARATIVE RANKING OF HYPOTHESES

A. The strongest hypothesis is H1 because it is the most plausible and straightforward

hypothesis out of the three. It is superior to all of the other hypotheses because it is

the most realistic given the information provided.

B. The next strongest hypothesis is H3 because it is much more simple and less complex

than H2. Although there are holes in the hypothesis, it would be easier to test and

makes more sense than H2. It is inferior to H1 because of its many additional

assumptions.

C. The weakest hypothesis is H2 because there are many additional and outlandish

assumptions that make it almost impossible to test.

Exercise 1
Argument #1 compares Women in Love to Huckleberry Finn, one of the best novels of
American literature to argue that Women in Love must be a masterpiece because they are
similar in ways that they both have been said to be careless and loosely constructed.
This is a weak [1] argument for the following reasons:
1 It consists of only one example, which is not sufficient to make the argument
strong. It is unclear if the storylines of the novels are similar and if the critics are
the same.

2 The conclusion is incautious by using the phrase “must be a masterpiece,” it

assumes that the book is predestined to be as great as Huckleberry Finn. The
evidence is not there to support the conclusion.

3 The similarities of the book are not relevant to the conclusion. Although critics
say that both novels were “careless and loosely constructed,” it does not make the
conclusion true.

4 There is not enough information available to draw a sound conclusion. One

would have to read both books to compare for themselves.
 Example 2
If someone treated his dog or cat the way hogs are treated on factory farms, that person
would be arrested for animal cruelty. Pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs and cats, and
so their treatment in factory farms should be illegal.
This is a weak [1] argument for the following reasons:

1 The sample is inadequate. The treatment of pigs is only being compared to

the treatment of dogs and cats. Dogs and cats are domestic animals, while pigs in
the factory farm setting are most generally there to fatten up and be slaughtered
for meat.

2 I believe the conclusion is exaggerated, given the comparison and sample is

so inadequate. There are no trigger words that would deem it cautious or
incautious.

3 There are several problems in the comparison. As stated above, pigs in a

factory farm are not domestic, while dogs and cats most commonly are. People
do not kill dogs and cats for their meat like they do pigs. Could you imagine a
world
without bacon? No. It is also unclear what the “treatment” of pigs in the factory
farm is. I am only assuming it is to feed and kill for meat as an inferential
statement.

4 It may be more appropriate to compare the treatment of pigs at a factory farm

to the treatment of cows that are bred, born, fed, and slaughtered. If the treatment
of pigs is worse than the treatment of cows, there might be cause to look at the
issue further.

Example 14
Argument #14 compares newly discovered Picasso paintings to other works of Picasso to
argue that the speaker will like them because they are similar in ways he has never seen a
Picasso he didn’t like.
This is a strong [4} argument for the following reasons:

1 The sample is good. The speaker is a big fan of Picasso and enjoys his “subjects,
styles and techniques,” which are predominant in all of Picasso’s work.

2 The conclusion is cautious, stating that it is “likely” that the speaker will enjoy the
new paintings. Given that it says, “there is no question of their authenticity,”
 sounds as though the styles and techniques used in the art are evident to be
Picasso, and the conclusion is justified.

3 Given that all of the paintings are by Picasso is a relevant similarity.

4 The fact that the speaker has not seen the new paintings but is relatively sure he
will like them is the only argument one could have. Since the speaker states, “I
have never seen a Picasso that I did not like” makes it difficult to argue.
Example 21
Argument #21 compares buying expensive luxury items (shoes) to not saving a child’s life
(drowning or starving), making the argument that one is immoral for frivolously spending
money on unnecessary things.
This is a relatively strong analogy [3-4] for the following reasons:
1 This is a conceptual analogy.

2 Although harsh, the author makes a point that instead of buying unnecessary
items, we could use that money to do good. The author seems relatively
incautious with their statement “buying any unnecessary luxury item, is immoral.”

3 The first comparison of not saving a drowning child because you don’t want to
ruin your new fancy shoes is far-fetched and a little crazy but relevant to the
argument. It paints a picture of the conclusion.

4 Considering the information, it is difficult to come up with a comparably strong

argument that frivolous spending is immoral.

My Analogical Argument
I am absolutely certain that I would like the cheeseburger from Easy G Sports Grill in
Concordia. I have tried the cheeseburgers at three other sports grills in Belleville, Clyde, and
Scandia and I have liked all of them so far. On the menu it says that it comes with pickles,
onions, and lettuce and my choice of cheese. The three other sports grills offered the same
toppings and cheese choices.
This argument compares the cheeseburger from Easy G Sports Grill in Concordia to the
cheeseburgers at three other sports grills in other towns to conclude that the speaker will like
the cheeseburger.
This is a strong [4] argument for the following reasons:
1 Although limited in number, I believe that sample is adequate. It is comparing the
cheeseburger from restaurants in three other towns with the same toppings and
choices.

2 The conclusion is incautious, stating that the speaker is “absolutely certain” they
would like the cheeseburger at Easy G Sports Grill.

3 The similarities between the cheeseburgers are relevant to the conclusion. The
menu offers the exact same options as other restaurants the speaker has went to.
The sample may be stronger if the bars offered the same bun (brioche or texas
toast) and meat (fresh or frozen).

4 There are many factors that make the burger terrible. If the meat is undercooked,
the vegetables are old, or the bun has mold on it. To be absolutely certain that a
cheeseburger will be good without considering what could happen in the kitchen
is a very bold conclusion.