Skip to main content

Chapter 9


In Chapter 9, the authors of the text discuss credibility. The text remarks that credibility is not only able to serve as a claim in argumentation, but it also plays a significant role as a means to support a claim (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 142). The text then goes into detail about characteristics and forms of credibility but finally goes over the general principle the authors suggest for the use of credibility. Credibility can be incredibly subjective, but there are still some general principles of credibility that can apply to most situations. The principle I found to stand out the most in the group of principles the authors presented was the principle of developing credibility from reputation.

Reputation is the credibility someone possesses with decision makers before they argue (Rieke, Sillars, & Peterson, 147). When I think of reputation in argument, I always manage to think of the polarized reputation of Donald Trump. There is a significant amount of people who hate him and a likely equal amount of people who unconditionally support him and his politics. President Trump is an excellent example of how divided people can see credibility based upon reputation. Supporters of the president are excited to go to rallies to hear him speak and read the arguments he writes about on Twitter because he has a significantly positive reputation with his supporters. Some of his supporters grant him adherence before his arguments are even made because of his strong reputation with them; therefore, President Trump has enhanced amounts of credibility with his supporters. In contrast, President Trumps’s opposition often doubts his arguments before he even makes them because he has a poor reputation with them. Trump’s opposition often is extremely resistant to granting him any adherence because his poor reputation weakens his reputation with these people.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 5, 2018 at 9:30 AM

    I really agree with the points you make about direct credibility. I also used the example of President Trump to illustrate the fallacy of direct credibility and how it can lead to dramatic consequences. President Trump has a huge amount of support and has gained credibility as his role as the President and also because he was a celebrity previous to his presidency. I think it's really important to remember that direct credibility is subjective and isn't always the best way to deem the credibility of someone. Like I stated in my own blog post, people like Donald Trump who have a great amount of credibility with a certain audience, but that doesn't mean that we should grant adherence to his claims; not everything that a person with direct credibility establishes is true or valid in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Blog Post 3- Chapter 4

In chapter 4 we take a look at the importance of understanding argument structures. We are able to look at the Toulmin model. It is a tool that is used to analyze an argument to see the components of one. The model is made up of several different filters to which we can look at an argument. According to the model an argument must have a claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal/reservation. This tool allows us to analyze an argument and ask the question “Is this a good argument?”. I think this is important because without any criteria as talked about before in chapter 2, an argument won’t have standards to which it has to meet. Also in chapter 4 we take a look at the reasoning processes and what the commonplaces of the reasoning’s are. There are several commonplaces which “Constitute the basis of most arguments” as according to the textbook. (Pg. 57). The processes are, logic or deduction, generalization, cause, sign, analogy and authority. I will look dee
Post a Comment
Read more