Skip to main content

Blog Post - Chapter 9


In this blog post we will talk about credibility. “Credibility may serve as a claim in an argument, but it’s most important role is as a means to support a claim just as evidence and values.” Aristotle defined credibility as “the support for a claim that is developed by the decision makers’ perception that the arguer reveals competence, trustworthiness, good will and dynamics.” It is important to realize that Aristotle focuses on the decision makers’ perception as a key aspect in determining the arguer’s credibility.  

The author also talks about the different forms of credibility which influence the reputation of the arguer and the perception of the decision maker. There are three forms of credibility direct, secondary and indirect credibility. I will focus on direct credibility. “This is the kind of credibility that you develop by making direct statements about yourself.”

Direct credibility talks about direct statements about yourself which can also be personal statements. Its is interesting to note that personal testimony is a type of direct credibility which is a form of evidence. When we use personal examples, we are building our reputation as an arguer and the credibility is related to us as individuals. An example of direct credibility is using one’s story to persuade someone’s position on a topic. I can use my example as an immigrant to persuade someone on why we should have ELL (English Language Leaners) programs in schools. Because i can use my personal experience as a non-native speaker to justify my position and credibility on the topic.


Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 6, 2018 at 11:40 PM

    Great job in summarizing the chapter and defining direct credibility! I also like your example of stating your immigration status as direct credibility for ELL programs. I am an immigrant as well. Therefore, I could use my status as direct credibility in support of the same programs. In my blog post, I wrote about another type of credibility called secondary credibility. This is when you use someone else's credentials to gain more credibility. If we imagine that I was actually born in the United States, I would not be considered as credible as an immigrant who went through ELL programs when presenting your proposition - unless I had some extensive ELL teaching experience of course. However, in that case, I could use your endorsement of ELL programs to strengthen my credibility and have decision makers in schools take me much more seriously.

    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