Skip to main content

Chapter 9


Credibility is arguably the most important factor in gaining an audience’s adherence to an argument, because decision makers often make up their minds about an argument before it even begins. Even when this is not the case, it can be difficult to sway a decision maker who has already granted credibility to the opposing side in an argument. Homophily especially is a difficult barrier to breach, as most people are reluctant to grant adherence to an argument from someone they see as different from themselves, even if they believe that argument to be more compelling. This is an issue commonly seen in politics, as people who are staunch supporters of a certain political party or candidate will be more willing to accept arguments from people that share their political views. This is why the consensus of who was the “winner” of a political debate is often unclear, as decision makers will say that either candidate was the winner depending on which one shares their partisan views. Staying on the topic of politics, secondary credibility is a commonly used strategy in political advertisements and debates, because decision makers are likely to hold the opinion of current and previous figureheads from their party in high regard. An example of this is Floridian Gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum’s ad campaign that has former President Barack Obama advocating in favor of Gillum for governor. This ad campaign relies on the secondary credibility of President Obama, as it believes that decision makers will be more likely to agree with Gillum’s case for governor due to the credibility that Obama has as a former president.

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