Skip to main content

Blog Post 6

For my in class presentation, I chose to speak on the topic of personal testimony. Chapter 7 once again brings up the topic when discussing the distinction between two types of testimony, factual and opinion. In this blog post, I will aim to use the information provided by Chapter 7 on testimony in addition to the past information I have already learned this semester, to better understand the nuances of testimony.
To begin, let's get basic definitions out of the way. Testimony of Fact provides information with examples or statistics, usually from an "expert" source. Testimony of Opinion aims to bring out expert opinion. Now, the book is careful to note that often when experts are giving personal testimony, they are asked to share facts and statistics from their field of expertise. Bias frequently comes up in this "expert" testimony, when the person giving the argument chooses the facts to bring up. There is a personal opinion carried out in this process, when the person giving expert testimony chooses the facts or statistics they believe are the most beneficial to the case. They choose how to display that information. The authors go on to state, "In truth, all these pieces of testimony represent opinion, although it represents expert opinion".  This is why I was using quotes on my "expert"s earlier. The fact that there is personal influence frequently present in factual testimony, inherently makes testimony of fact somewhat opinion based. It is important in these cases then, to make sure to clearly separate arguments of fact from arguments of opinion in testimony. When providing information, explain how it relates to and is separate from both sides of the argument. The textbook calls this "delineation", when you outline the difference between the facts and others opinions.
When I think about how this applies to what I already know of personal testimony, it only makes sense. Personal testimony is already highly opinion based. Chapter 7 only reinforces the fact that even in "expert" cases, when searching for fact, it is still often that opinion is found. When looking to make an argument in a courtroom, it must be very difficult to find an expert source that also shares the same opinions as your side of the argument. Because if they don't, all of a sudden you have an expert witness on the stand listing off facts against your case. In addition, what I have learned in Chapter 7 only decreases the reliability and legitimacy of a jury even further. How are so many people with varying experiences, and therefore opinions, going to be able to consistently assess the difference between facts and opinions given in testimony, accurately enough to come to a correct decision? It seems like an impossible feat.

Comments

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