Extrinsic Proofs

My random thoughts and comments on Chapter 8/Extrinsic Proofs:

I am just as guilty as the next person for putting too much faith into the trustworthiness and accuracy of published material. And while I’m not quick to identify myself with the opinions and writings of others, I tend to believe in a published writer’s authority. I’m referring to print media with these comments, because I think that material found on the internet falls under a different category. I am not as quick to trust the accuracy of what I’m linked to on the web. If something sparks my curiosity, I usually attempt to trace its origin of found further documentation in order to validate its credibility…especially if I intend to share the info or use it in class or conversation. As covered in the chapter on Ethical Proof, I make and effort to “do my homework.”

I was happy to see the authors use fact as it is commonly used. Even though the authors informed readers of the distinction, I couldn’t get used to it. I constantly had to review their (or the ancient rhetors) definition. Keeping in line with the written word, I’d like echo Lora’s appreciation for the Socrates comment on page 269. In short, he claims that written words keep telling you’re the same thing forever. I never really thought about this, but it’s worth considering because how often do we read something that was published years or hundreds of years ago and hold it as worthy. We can’t consistently accept published writing at face value and as the authors suggest, we need to interpret instead of accept it at face value.

As the authors state on page 271, “those who have nothing to gain are more credible than those who stand to profit.” This is something we need to consider when we engage with others and with texts. This is represented in courtrooms across the country. Consider the process involved in selecting a jury, which functions to find the most unbiased citizens to determine the outcome of a trial. I often wonder how jury members are selected for “serious” cases. How can they find people who are so detached from ideals, beliefs, etc.?

The section on community authorities applies to most of my college experiences. “Citations suggest that we have read our authorities carefully, which reinforces our ethos.” Students in college and high school are continuously asked to prove that we know what we are talking about. I often wondered what it takes to become an authority on an issue. At what point can we stop citing others and using others to prove our knowledge and accuracy. How do we become one of the experts of a field, like the examples the authors use: Marx, Freud, or Aristotle. But since we are confined to using the experts to prove our claims, it is suggested that we “comment immediately on every quotation we use.” It is with these comments that we can have our own voices hear.

I was fascinated by the example of Travis Walton on page 278. I can’t remember hearing anything about this case, but I plan to look into it. It seems as though his story has served as inspiration for many Alien tales, but it is a great example of a proximate authority. It presents the question of whether or not sensory experience is accurate and credible. I tend to disagree with the senses having credibility. It’s seems that experiences are too conditional for perceptions to carry any weight. What was “bright” to Travis Walton might not be bright to the next guy. Even if the proximate witness passes a test, I do believe that we have to be skeptical of their account. I know that sometimes witnesses are the only form of evidence in a case, but I have to think that people are sometimes wrongly accused as a result of what someone perceived. Therefore, I don’t support the connection between witness and authority. A promiximate authority is similar to the written word. We can’t accept everything at face value, instead we must interpret.