The chapter that interested me the most from the section we had to choose from was Argumentation in Science. I think the scientific process, especially the peer review process, is very important and helps to ensure that scientists have covered all of their bases when presenting their research. Empirical adequacy is something that is also important in science- phenomena relating to things that cannot be observed with the naked eye must be significant enough to prove a hypothesis. Evidence from experiments may be used to make claims of fact based on the observations and data. Experiments also must be repeatable so other scientists can be sure that the phenomena happens again and it is not just a fluke. This is one thing that can be difficult about science, as many experiments pertain to places. For example, the climate in Minnesota is much different than the climate in Arizona. Scientists would not be able to repeat an outdoor experiment in both places and expect similar results because of the vast differences. This is just one example of why variables in science can prove to be difficult. This is another reason the peer review process is important. Other scientists may be able to point out flaws in the experiment, the repeatability of the experiment, or the conclusions being drawn from the data. People with different backgrounds and perspectives can provide excellent insight and greatly improve the conclusions and overall argument of the document in question, whether it be a paper, presentation, or poster.
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 hat
Comments
Post a Comment