Through chapter seven, different forms of evidence is being discussed and how it can help strengthen and bring credibility to an argument. The most typical forms of evidence is statistical and testimonies, these two forms of evidence are also the most reliable ones. Statistical evidence is viewed as credible because accurate numbers usually displays truth. On the other hand you have testimonies, which can be crucial to decide the outcome of any case. Many murder cases are heavily effected by people’s personal testimonies, if one side of the case, say the defendants, are able to bring in a key witness that saw someone committ a murder than their testimony about how it happened would greatly increase the defendants chances of winning the case. However, how a testimony is delivered is also important, in order to create credibility one would have to have the information organized and be able to present the testimony in a chronological order. Arguments that succeed in persuading someone, for example a jury, are often constructed of multiple forms of evidence, not just one. So if you can present your case with statistical evidence as well as multiple testimonies then you will greatly increase your chances of winning the case.
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...
Hi Matz!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post this week and believe you have made some important points. You mention how not only are statics and testimonies the most typical forms of evidence, but also the most reliable. I would agree that accurate numbers tend to display truth, and I would say numbers are difficult to argue against. Additionally, testimonies can be tricky because the individuals giving the testimony must be credible in order to strengthen the argument. Although I believe that statistical and testimonial evidence are important, I believe it is crucial to use evidence that is relevant. Without relevance, statical and testimonial evidence lose value. For example, if you present statistics that are no longer valid because too much time has passed, the evidence is no longer valuable to support your case.
I agree with some points in your post, Matz. You state that the two most reliable forms of evidence are testimony and stats. I stated that those are the least out of the three to be the most reliable. For one example, testimony is difficult to use in any situation because he could turn into he says she say and that makes any situation less believable because you don’t know who is telling the complete truth. But I agree with you that they are very helpful and could sometimes enhanced your side in arguments. I just didn’t think they were the most reliable out of the three. So, do you think by example is the least reliable form of evidence?
ReplyDelete