Skip to main content

Blog Post #1 - Chapter 3

I found particular interest in the section on personal testimony. This section examines the arguments for and against the value of personal testimony in the context of feminist causes. Immediately I was interested to note the push for some to elevate the status of personal testimony; in my personal experience (a somewhat ironic statement) I have heard that personal testimony is inferior to other types of reasoning. As I learned women are much more likely than men to use personal testimony in argumentation. This particular statement generated cognitive dissonance within me. As much as I would like to rely solely on other forms of reasoning, there is also evidence that indicates this is not always possible.
In court, defendants are usually instructed not to take the stand unless it is absolutely necessary. In academic research and essays personal testimony is often - if not usually - labeled as unacceptable. These conventions stand at odds with the things asked of women when they report crimes like sexual assault and when they make arguments for social change. These arguments often rely heavily upon personal testimony, and they also bear the burden of proof. Thus in order for women to use their personal testimony in these situations it is generally changed to appeal to the preexisting systems which are, by default, masculine.
The concept of inconsistencies in the presentation of personal testimony holds especially heavy weight in arenas like court. For Nafissatou Diallo her case ended due to inconsistencies in the many retellings she gave of her experience. Similarly, Kesha’s prosecution was halted due to prior court proceedings where she signed under oath that no crime had occurred. A contrasting infamous example could be the high-profile Jodi Arias case in which she changed testimony wildly - destroying her credibility. All of these examples demonstrate the potential for personal testimony to erode the credibility of a person making an argument. It only takes a minor discrepancy for opponents to seize the opportunity and capitalize upon it.

After reading this chapter I get less of a sense of resolution when it comes to evaluating the place of personal testimony, but a greater understanding of its gendered discrepancies and function in argumentation.

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

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

Case Building

Chapter 6 of Argumentation and Critical Decision Making focuses on the steps required in building a case. Among the concepts that are discussed, visualization stands out as one of the most important. On page 101, the authors even state “Powerful arguments are only half of the job in preparing a case or presentation. The other half is developing a convincing vision through which you can tell the story of your ultimate purpose” In other words, having a great argument alone is not going to necessarily gain you adherence. Instead, it needs to be supplemented with a story that vividly shows the decision maker the outcome if they were to agree to the proposition.   The chapter goes on to say that to create a powerful vision you must know the decision maker’s narrative of the subject you are arguing about. The example that is given is college. Some decision makers might have had the greatest time of their lives in college during which they made a ton of friends and found love. On the ...
1 comment
Read more