Skip to main content

Chapter 9


Chapter 9 focuses on the concept of credibility being used as a method of support in argumentation. As defined in the reading, credibility is “the support for a claim that is developed by the decision makers’ perception that the arguer reveals competence, trustworthiness, good will, and dynamism” (pg. 142). In other words, credibility is the support an arguer uses that is believed and trusted to be true by the audience. I believe credibility is one of the most important forms of support when it comes to argumentation because information that lacks credibility can greatly impact the outcomes of decision makers. The chapter discussed the general principles for the use of credibility which include reputation and evidence. Reputation is the credibility a person has with decision makers before they argue and evidence is a method used to strengthen an individual's credibility. Both of these factors can greatly impact the credibility of an individual who is presenting his arguments to an audience. For example, an individual is more likely to trust a doctor who has a positive reputation (great patient reviews, numerous awards, and various recommendations) than one who has made a few mistakes in their career. Additionally, a doctor who is able to provide its patients with hard core evidence, like medical examination analysis, has a higher level of credibility than an individual who just makes statements without having any sort of backing. Additionally, I also believe that an individual's credibility can be quickly destroyed if they take part in acts that can greatly harm their reputation. An example of this is Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whose reputation was negatively impacted when he was accused of a tennage sexual assault. Many individuals believe that his lack of credibility because of this case will negatively impact the way he makes future Supreme Court decisions.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 5, 2018 at 11:37 AM

    I agree with your post totally, Ana. I think credibility is very important in any argument as well because your argument is useless because no one believes anything you say. Also, your reputation plays a big influence on that. What you do or say impacts your credibility a lot. I love your examples of the senator and the doctor as well. That shows how your reputation can affect your credibility. To win in any argument will have to have some credible source in your favor, either it could by yourself or someone else, that shows you how much of an important factor this is in arguments. People love a trustworthy and reliable person to believe in, so your post on credibility was a great way to explain this form of support.

    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