Skip to main content

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 helped me learn about the different perspectives people have with argumentation and the ways that they evaluate arguments and what makes them believe in an argument. Since I am someone who believes in logic and trust scientific evidence and discoveries I was mostly focused on the part in the chapter where they talked about the role of science in argumentation. The majority of people would not simply agree with an argument if it was based on personal beliefs and lacked forms of evidence. The chapter explained that the most convincing arguments are usually the ones that includes scientific evidence. However, whether or not a person needs to have a lot of scientific evidence can be based on who it is that is presenting the argument. A person with a lot of power and social influence, for example a celebrity like Kylie Jenner, they have such a strong following and support from fans that they could tell people something with no evidence present, and they would probably believe them. That is because they have a lot of credibility and people believe what they say to be true. Someone who are not of celebrity status or has a powerful position in society, would most likely need a good story in addition to strong scientific proof.

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 26, 2018 at 5:33 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousSeptember 26, 2018 at 5:38 AM

    Hi Matz! Thank you for sharing, I enjoyed reading your post. I believe you make some useful points regarding on how it is important for argumentation to not only include personal beliefs, but also to sustain some kind of evidence that helps support the claims. You mention how the chapter states that the most convincing arguments are those which include scientific evidence. I think your example is great for demonstrating how an individual with presence and popularity has greater influence without necessarily needing scientific evidence to back up their arguments. Lastly, I would agree that someone with less social influence would need stronger evidence to support their claims. Do you find yourself believing arguments that well-known individuals make (like celebrities for example) or do you usually agree with claims only if they have evidence supporting it? In my opinion, I do value scientific evidence, but would not agree with the authors state that the most convincing arguments are those which contain scientific evidence. What if you are presenting the argument to an audience that lacks scientific knowledge?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chap 5

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, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Chapter 10

There were a couple of terms I found in this chapter that I wish were explained a little more. First, the concept of uncritical responses to refutation is only covered briefly. I think that this is one of the most fundamental barriers to effective public argumentation in the United States right now. I find this issue most concerning for the liberal party. Recalling the last election and the concept of 'incremental' argumentation, I feel that people demonstrated a massive failure of critical thinking by voting for third parties or not voting. People who were disappointed with Hillary Clinton's candidacy in place of Bernie Sanders decided to either continue voting for Bernie or not vote altogether. Neither of these strategies amounted to effective support of their cause, and they constitute the uncritical "knee-jerk" reaction described in this chapter. In this case, uncritical response to opposition worked directly against the interests of the decision-makers. A...
1 comment
Read more

Chaper 8

Chapter 8 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making continues down the route of talking about support for argumentation. This chapter specifically focuses on values as support for arguments, how to recognize them and the best ways to attack them. Values are defined as “ concepts of what is desirable that arguers use and decision makers understand” (121).  There are several types of values mentioned such as stated, implied, positive, negative, terminal, instrumental, abstract and concrete values.  Stated values are state directly what concepts they hold. For example, words such as “freedom” or “health” are stated values because they mean exactly what they're trying to portray. Not all values are as explicit. Some are more vague and called implied values. One of the examples that the book uses to show the contrast between the two is in the case of work equality. When talking about the subject saying, “ Equal pay for equal work” would be a stated value and “ Women deserve th...
Post a Comment
Read more