I feel that evidence is everything in an argument. If there is no evidence to support your claim, nobody will really acknowledge it is relevant or believe you. It is interesting how much evidence is needed to sway an audience towards a certain argument has changed over the years. Back in history, people would answer to and believe anything a higher power like a king, pope, or the majority of the population thought. The higher powers would base their arguments on their personal opinions. A king could sentence a person to death by saying they were a traitor as evidence and the public would accept this, even though the person was a respected member of society. With no evidence shown to them that the person was a traitor, they would still show up to the gallows and cheer for their death. Another thing that comes to mind is how Hitler in WWII persuaded his entire army to eliminate the entire Jewish population. His evidence was that they were an inferior race and millions were killed because of this. The entire army accepted this with little evidence and all on the basis of their leader believing it. Today in modern society, it takes a lot more evidence to persuade an audience. Everyone has to prove their stance with a certain amount of credible evidence for anyone to even listen to it. Our judicial system is based on how much evidence it takes for a person to be guilty. There is firsthand and secondhand evidence that help any argument prove to be more credible. Observation, interviews, personal experience, experiments are a great way to provide evidence but since they are performed by an individual, the words or results can be skewed towards their opinion. I think this is demonstrated in the advertising of products since every product shows results in graphs that make it seem the best.
I agree that today’s society requires a lot more evidence from someone before they are swayed into believing someone’s claim. Although there are some exceptions to what I just said above, overall that is the case for today’s society. I like the example you gave about our judicial system. Because our judicial system is based on the phrase, “innocent before proven guilty,” courts have to spend a lot of time presenting evidence against someone. I think it takes roughly 1 to 2 years for an average case today, since there is a lot of cases our system has to process today. It seems that propaganda today is all based on evidence today. This product has these results because of these pictures, and we have found a cure based on this data, and so many more examples. Just the other day I was watching an infomercial about some new cosmetology procedure that is affordable and simple for face lifts. The commercial spent a majority of the time explaining the procedure and then went about demonstrating before and after pictures. Even though this doesn’t sound like much evidence, it persuades the audience pretty well. The fact that the audience can visualize these results gives the company so much more control over what they are selling. Overall your excerpt of chapter 16 is a nice summary of the chapter. The examples you provided are good, and if I had not read the chapter beforehand I would have understood the points made given that I read your excerpt on it.
ReplyDeleteThis blog was taking a look at the more modern way evidence is constructed and used. Granted, the chapter in the book is also based off evidence used today. This blog illustrated the importance of having factual structures to back up your argument. They argue that without evidence in today's society, nobody will really believe you. In order to have a valid case in court nowadays, the attorneys and judges must have sufficient, set in stone evidence in order to convict somebody. Nothing is proved from murky evidence and the audience is less likely to be swayed to believe what you are thinking if your evidence is insufficient or lacking. this blog post also brings in the examples of how evidence was not needed as much back in the day. The example of Hitler being able to get a following of thousands of people was not even based on evidence, yet more the way he presented himself and based his authority and credibility. In today's society, much more evidence is needed. This reminds me of the Casey Anthony trial, which is very recent, so kairos ties in just like this blog states, in which the majority of people definitely believed she was guilty, but they were unable to make a solid, justified verdict simply because of the lacking of scientific, clear-cut evidence. This blog is definitely accurate, which is clearly revealed through current examples. This blog also does a great job of making this information easy to comprehend and apply to our current project:)
ReplyDeleteThe use of prime historical examples in this post was interesting, but made me start to think. You posited that it was easier long ago for rulers and tyrants to manipulate their subjects without solid, hard evidence. To a certain extent, I do agree with you. With the vast amount of information available to practically everyone in the US has created a greater sense of skepticism in some populations, and there is a greater environment of literacy and questioning. However, the use of arguments devoid of hard evidence is just as widespread today as it was a hundred years ago. Think of how many people tune in to Rush Limbaugh's show week after week, caring not where he gets his information yet still swallowing up his swill. Especially pertinent is the hype over the "Kony 2012" campaign. Although a dedicated few have worked to expose the less than perfect record of the Invisible Children network, the pure excitement of the movement had people jumping on the bandwagon faster than anyone could have imagined. Solidarity is a huge factor in getting people to believe anything.
ReplyDelete