Skip to main content

Chapter 9

In chapter 9 the chapter talks about credibility. It talks about what credibility is, what it is used for and more. The most interesting part I found about this chapter is the different types of credibility. According to the book, there is three different types of credibility. There is direct credibility which is making direct statements about yourself. For example, if I were a famous scientists and I was making an argumentation about something logical, I would state something like "I've been a scientists for 30 years and have made several life changing discoveries that have shaped the way the world runs today and I blah blah blah" Right there I made a direct credibility by stating my intelligence for this logical argument.

The second type of credibility is called secondary credibility. Secondary credibility is when a persons use someone else's credibility as the grounds for the argument. So for example, if I was again in an argument about something logical, I might want to pull up a secondary credibility by saying something like "John Adams founder of John Adams high school in Boy Meets World once stated that his students would be as successful as Lincoln himself". That's probably the worse secondary credibility example ever but you get the picture that your stating someone else facts or research to create that credibility.

The last type of credibility is called indirect credibility. Indirect credibility is when you indirectly establish your credibility. Like if you're a really good arguer and your winning an argument you indirectly established your credibility. Another example in today's world is cult leaders are really good at establishing indirect credibility. They can argue and convince people so well to join their cult that you can't say they're not credible.

I did not know there were so many different kinds of credibility and I can't wait to apply them to other arguments.

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