Chapter 3 provided a very good framework to examine the ways in which people view arguments. While I was interested by all of the topics in the chapter, I was most intrigued by how the text discussed science. Science has been thought to be one of the more powerful forms of argument, especially in the last 300 years. However, I think that may be shifting, as there is now a large contingent of people (at least in the United States) that completely disagree with concrete scientific evidence. To people who do not believe scientific evidence, the reasoning is not good enough. This can be the case for a variety of reasons. For them, the evidence is not sufficient enough to warrant adherence, while someone with untrue evidence and a good story could convince people otherwise. I also thought that the notion of good reasons and good stories were important, especially in the global political landscape today. Decisions that world leaders make impact people around the world, but they need to be good storytellers and have convincing reasons to persuade the people to elect them. One example of scientific fact versus storytelling is how President Donald Trump stated that he does not believe human induced climate change is occurring. The way he tells stories is a way that appeals to many people, so they feel that him stating what he believes to be true is enough for them to grant him adherence. This also shows his credibility in the minds of many people. Because he is the one saying it, they grant him adherence, even if the facts are not necessarily good facts. In order to have a truly solid argument, a person much have good facts and a good story, but many times, people with one or the other can manage to convince people to believe what they are trying to convey.
Chapter five focuses primarily on identifying and developing propositions for problems that people think are relevant. It goes over 6 steps for choosing a valid proposition based on a perceived “feeling of doubt.” While all six steps may not be necessary, the collectively ensure a well thought out and firm proposition. The six steps include identifying the question, surveying implicated objectives (or understanding what is the goal accomplishment in regard to the question), searching for new information, considering alternative options, considering costs and risks of each potential proposition, and then finally choosing one of the propositions. The authors then go on to talk about analyzing and strengthening the proposition chosen. This includes identification and ranking of the issues that the proposition addresses as well as understanding how the decision makers will react to these issues and propositions. In general, with all these methods of critically analyzing the proposition, ...
I agree with you completely on the part about scientific fact versus storytelling. Donald Trump is a major perpetrator of this, using his status and his prominent voice to convey messages that may not be wholeheartedly truthful, but push forward his particular agenda. Others in positions of power use these same tactics in argument to get people to follow along with their views or specific argument. I was also interested in the use of science in argumentation, it makes your argument solid as a rock if you can back it up with empirical evidence, that has been tested, re-tested, and proven to back up your claim. It just makes you seem more credible if you have a claim, make a hypothesis regarding said claim, and then back it up by conducting experiments and running field tests. I personally think credibility is the most important part in an argument, if you're a credible, reliable source, most of the time your audience won't even question what you have to say. They will rely on the information you present to be the only possible variation of that information, not just the frame that makes the speaker seem to be in the best possible light.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoyed how this post focused on science as a way for people to make sense of arguments. Yes, I agree that a large population of people are choosing to ignore long-standing scientific theories in favor of radical thoughts perpetuated by opinion leaders through a wide range of platforms. You mentioned that some people choose to ignore science because the evidence brought forth is insufficient for them to adhere to the argument. You also noted that good stories can sometimes override scientific facts. I would like to advance one more reason as to why people ignore scientific evidence that many of us have come to accept as facts.
ReplyDeleteThe text mentions that “science is a human endeavor, and like any human endeavor, it merits being subjected to rigorous social analysis” (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 41). In other words, any scientific theory put forth by experts will undergo intense scrutiny from various social spheres. Hence, the social sphere that one is a part of largely impacts how people perceive science. The reason for this is because different spheres give respect to different authorities. To use climate change as an example, many scientific journals have identified human activity as a contributing factor to climate change. These scientific journals in the academic community hold a power authority. Thus, people in that sphere are more inclined to be persuaded by this scientific knowledge. However, when political leaders advance the notion that climate change is not human-induced, their arguments hold power authority over their supporters. Their supporters, in turn, are likely to agree with the politician and spread that rhetoric. Politicians themselves believe these statements due to personal authority. Thus, when various authorities in different spheres come into play, people believe either science, stories, or good reasons, depending on how they evaluate these claims.
Sources:
Rieke, R.D., Sillars, M.O., & Peterson, T.R. (2013). Argumentation and critical decision making. 8th ed., New York: Pearson