I was particularly interested in the concept of burden of proof from this week's reading. I had heard the term thrown around quite a bit, but I never fully understood what it meant until I read the example in the text. I think burden of proof has been especially prominent in the news because of the #MeToo movement and the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Burden of proof is an excellent concept to apply to both of these events, as much of the evidence is personal testimony, so there is not a scientific or methodical way to prove or disprove allegations. Int he Kavanaugh case, the closest thing they had to proof was that Dr. Blasey Ford took a lie detector test. Ultimately, it came down to personal testimony, and the committee voted along party lines to confirm Kavanaugh. I was also interested in the concept of the burden of the rejoinder. While I have heard the term “burden of proof” thrown around quite a bit, I had never heard of this term before. I think the book did a great job of explaining the term. I understood it as a rebuttal to the burden of proof. If the opposing side cannot respond, their position and credibility becomes null because the other side made a better argument. I think burden of the rejoinder is a more difficult term to apply to larger situations like the #MeToo movement because it makes much more sense (at least to me) on a case-by-case basis.
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 think you made very strong points about both the burden of proof and the burden of rejoinder. Another way of thinking about these two concepts together is by satisfying the burden of proof and providing strong evidence, you are moving your decision makers towards your argument compared to the opposing side. The burden of rejoinder comes in when the argument shifts to an opponent who has to continue progressing their argument. A common situation to happen in this shift from the burden of proof to the burden of rejoinder is when the response in argument is weak, like you mentioned, in turn eroding their basis of argument. When their is an opportunity for rejoinder, it is crucial this response to the burden of proof is strongly built with evidence and wittiness to persuade decision makers away from your opponents burden of proof. This is tricky to apply to the Kavanaugh and Ford case because of the personal testimony and lack of proof. They both used the different types of burdens, however there was no solid evidence against Kavanaugh. They both used witnesses, their own testimony, but no solid evidence that could actually sway a jury in a real court case. This deprivation of evidence essentially lead to Kavanaugh’s induction as the Supreme Court Judge despite knowing whether these allegations are true or false.
ReplyDelete