Initially I had a difficult time wrapping my head around the concepts laid out in this chapter on extrinsic proofs. Perhaps it’s because we’ve been working so long on intrinsic proofs based on internal invention that I stopped considering the big picture. But it was absolutely a refreshing read to step out of the intrinsic box and remember there is a larger scope to constructing an argument.
A great deal of the focus seemed to be on potential biases a rhetor (or common individual) might have. “Ancient rhetoricians generally distrusted the testimony of ordinary persons,” said Crowley & Hawhee, “especially those who testified in legal cases.” (271) I hadn’t pegged the ancient rhetoricians to have that level of cynicism and mistrust for people, but I am certainly glad they had the foresight to consider such obstacles.
Aristotle’s method of determining juror value, for example, based on potential bias was absolutely brilliant and very ahead of its time. It also makes me wonder as to why similar methods are not put in place today. Yes, the attorneys have a set number of jurors they can dismiss based on both pre-agreed value judgments, their own judgments or for no stated reason at all, but that seems very open to interpretation of the individual attorney. Plus who hasn’t gotten a letter requesting your presence for jury duty and instantly been unhappy in going, especially if you’re selected? That alone could create a bias, which is extremely important to set aside as a juror, considering a great deal rides on their interpretations of situation and arguments.
The best solution to both these issues, in my mind, is to create a system quite like they have in (possibly, I’m not sure and I couldn’t find information online to confirm or dispute my thought) England. Such a system involves jurors not just on a case-by-case random sampling, but jurors are used on a career basis. Their entire function of employment would be to be jurors on criminal cases. These would be individuals who are hired simply because of their tendency to be impartial and unbiased. Such traits could be identified and quantified by the employer, who in this case would likely be the state.
These career jurors would be trained to identify strengths and weaknesses in argument while being certain to maintain the integrity of their role as jurors. Certainly they could come under pressure from outside sources, but that would be no different than the system currently in place, and career jurors would be far tougher to influence than the everyday man or woman. Like everything I seem to discuss in my blogs, it would take a drastic overhaul, but in my opinion it would lead to more organized, fair trials that would guarantee juror impartiality.
It was a substantial enough concern that ancients like Aristotle had to devise a system to work around such biases; why can’t we devise one to ensure their elimination?
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Questioning Proofs
I sent an email out, but I’ll reiterate here that I apologize for not attending this evening. It turns out my sore throat is not a mere cold; I have strep throat (hooray!). I made a bad joke about asking my husband who he’s been kissing (because both of us have it despite the fact that he works out of town Mon-Fri). He didn’t think it was very funny. :-D
We talk a lot about advertisements and how these images and short scenes try to convince us to buy specific products. They use both intrinsic or extrinsic proofs, I think, to appeal to both our appreciation for logic and emotional experience. They can say “9 out of 10 people prefer the refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.” We can call into question the survey conducted—how do we know that these statistics are factual or unbiased? In addition, throw in the word “refreshing,” and it automatically connects to our experiences as when we feel “refreshed.”
If we talk about individuals who have a strong influence on cultural commentary and produce “testimonials,” let us think about how we might rely on Oprah as an expert about social awareness. Is Oprah just as influential as, say, Marx or Freud? Does she not have the power to change the way we think about ourselves as consumers (of pop culture, literature, music, etc.)?
On one hand, I think that our experiences are sure ways for us to understand our environment. If we can say that emotions are not irrational—that they are a part of an intellectual process in dealing with external stimuli—then are our experiences (or shared experiences) not an intellectual (and therefore, logical) mode of selling or promoting a product? Are our experiences not valid reasons to argue certain beliefs or points?
While I say that experiences have “rhetorical weight” in an argument, I have to also point out that experience can also be deceiving. If we are always passing judgment or making decisions based upon our own past experiences, are we limiting ourselves? How does this method of understanding actually prohibit us from growing as individuals? I think of the seemingly innocuous phrase that I’ve heard people say to let others know that they are not racist. They may say: “I’m not racist; I have black friends.” If we break this phrase down, the person speaking is saying a few things. First, they claim that they are not racist because they have black friends. They imply that they accept all black people because they have been friendly with people who happen to be black. Finally, they mention that perhaps if you do not have black friends, then you may be racist. And simultaneously, this phrase is lumping one entire race into one category to say that from personal experience, an entire race of individuals cannot be discriminated against because you are friends with some black people—not all of them. This phrase is implicitly racist because you are defining an entire race of individuals in one category based on your own personal experience. This is an instance in which a person’s personal experience may hinder them as individuals more than educate him or her. I use this as an example because this is exactly the kind of phrase that can be turned around to say: “I hate all black people” because you happen have had one bad experience with one person who happens to be black. I hope that that makes sense. On one hand, I want to point out that experience can be a positive way to guide one’s decision-making process, and it can also be negative and lead to things like racism (or agism, sexism, etc.). I hope that that makes sense.
All in all, I took from this chapter that there are ways of understanding “proof,” whether it be considered empirical data or anecdotal information. I think that the overall concept is that we be wary of what we are hearing and how it is being presented to us to produce a particular effect. In other words, I think that it is always wise to take into consideration one’s own experiences in making decisions, but I also think that it is wise to understand that other peoples’ experiences are also just as significant as ours. As for data, I will say that it is important to consider statistical error, as well as consider that sometimes we have data for scientific questions that are answered because of political influence. Basically, what I took from the reading is that we should be conscious of what kind of “proofs” are being presented to us and the effect that those proofs are trying to produce for us as cultural consumers.
We talk a lot about advertisements and how these images and short scenes try to convince us to buy specific products. They use both intrinsic or extrinsic proofs, I think, to appeal to both our appreciation for logic and emotional experience. They can say “9 out of 10 people prefer the refreshing taste of Coca-Cola.” We can call into question the survey conducted—how do we know that these statistics are factual or unbiased? In addition, throw in the word “refreshing,” and it automatically connects to our experiences as when we feel “refreshed.”
If we talk about individuals who have a strong influence on cultural commentary and produce “testimonials,” let us think about how we might rely on Oprah as an expert about social awareness. Is Oprah just as influential as, say, Marx or Freud? Does she not have the power to change the way we think about ourselves as consumers (of pop culture, literature, music, etc.)?
On one hand, I think that our experiences are sure ways for us to understand our environment. If we can say that emotions are not irrational—that they are a part of an intellectual process in dealing with external stimuli—then are our experiences (or shared experiences) not an intellectual (and therefore, logical) mode of selling or promoting a product? Are our experiences not valid reasons to argue certain beliefs or points?
While I say that experiences have “rhetorical weight” in an argument, I have to also point out that experience can also be deceiving. If we are always passing judgment or making decisions based upon our own past experiences, are we limiting ourselves? How does this method of understanding actually prohibit us from growing as individuals? I think of the seemingly innocuous phrase that I’ve heard people say to let others know that they are not racist. They may say: “I’m not racist; I have black friends.” If we break this phrase down, the person speaking is saying a few things. First, they claim that they are not racist because they have black friends. They imply that they accept all black people because they have been friendly with people who happen to be black. Finally, they mention that perhaps if you do not have black friends, then you may be racist. And simultaneously, this phrase is lumping one entire race into one category to say that from personal experience, an entire race of individuals cannot be discriminated against because you are friends with some black people—not all of them. This phrase is implicitly racist because you are defining an entire race of individuals in one category based on your own personal experience. This is an instance in which a person’s personal experience may hinder them as individuals more than educate him or her. I use this as an example because this is exactly the kind of phrase that can be turned around to say: “I hate all black people” because you happen have had one bad experience with one person who happens to be black. I hope that that makes sense. On one hand, I want to point out that experience can be a positive way to guide one’s decision-making process, and it can also be negative and lead to things like racism (or agism, sexism, etc.). I hope that that makes sense.
All in all, I took from this chapter that there are ways of understanding “proof,” whether it be considered empirical data or anecdotal information. I think that the overall concept is that we be wary of what we are hearing and how it is being presented to us to produce a particular effect. In other words, I think that it is always wise to take into consideration one’s own experiences in making decisions, but I also think that it is wise to understand that other peoples’ experiences are also just as significant as ours. As for data, I will say that it is important to consider statistical error, as well as consider that sometimes we have data for scientific questions that are answered because of political influence. Basically, what I took from the reading is that we should be conscious of what kind of “proofs” are being presented to us and the effect that those proofs are trying to produce for us as cultural consumers.
Experience/Testimonials
I resorted to the questions at the end of the chapter to help guide me toward a blog post idea. I decided to write several thoughts based on the following:
In modern rhetoric, the argument from experience also carries a good deal of rhetorical weight. People can stop arguments by saying something like this: "Well, I'm a Catholic and so I ought to know the Catholic position on abortion." The argument from experience assumes that persons who have lived through a series of experiences are authorities on any issues that are relevant to those experiences. What weight do you attach to such arguments? How can they be refuted?
Responding directly to the scenario presented by the authors, I've heard this argument from people before (albeit not the exact one, but close enough). My response to a person who would say this to me would be to ask them if they're just going along with what their parents taught them, what their individual parish taught them, what other friends have commented on or if they have actually 'educated' themselves by going directly to the 'doctrine': books written by Pope John Paul II, other religious scholars throughout the ages and even doing analyses of certain Bible verses.
Just because a person is of a certain group or belongs to a certain culture does not automatically make him/her an expert. I've experienced this in various situations when I took Spanish 4 as a Junior in high school (without doing all of the prerequisite courses). I am a fluent speaker and so everyone assumed I'd get an A+. When I ended up with a slightly lower grade than that, my closest friends with whom I shared my grades were astonished!
"Why didn't you get an A+?!?!?! You're fluent!!"
I then asked them what their most recent grade in English class was.
"B+, C."
My response, "Hey you speak fluent English, why don't you have an A+ in English???"
So they assumed that because I spoke fluent Spanish, that I would be a Spanish linguistics expert at 17 and would basically take over the teacher's role and teach the class.
Another part of this chapter that interested me was testimony. I am in the wedding DJ business (as I've discussed on previous occasions) and the use of testimonials by my company and by others is an important part of the business. Looking at our website we have the following testimonials from previous clients:
"I WISH WE COULD HAVE HAD TWO RECEPTIONS. YOU GUYS DID SUCH A GOOD JOB! EVERYONE WAS COMMENTING ON HOW MUCH FUN THEY WERE HAVING."
"YOU GUYS WERE FIRST IN, LAST OUT. I WAS SHOCKED. I'LL BE RECOMMENDING YOU TO MY ENGAGED FRIENDS, FOR SURE."
As they appear on our website, neither of these testimonials have a person's name, initials, wedding date or any other identifying information listed. I can attest that these two quotes are actual comments made to us after we've done a gig. I'm asking those of you in the class, would it matter to you if for example the first quote looked like this:
"I WISH WE COULD HAVE HAD TWO RECEPTIONS. YOU GUYS DID SUCH A GOOD JOB! EVERYONE WAS COMMENTING ON HOW MUCH FUN THEY WERE HAVING."
- Mr. and Mrs. Kline, wedding, August 2009
OR
- Jennifer and Steve, wedding, August 2009
OR
What if there is no name attached to the quote?
What if I did have a name attached to the quote, but because of privacy, I did not use their real names? Would it matter? For all you know in my quote or in any company's testimonial section, I may have made these up. Just completely fabricated various quotes to make us sound good. So when considering a company or service of any kind, how important is it for you to hear what others have said?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.
The Power of Data
With this chapter we start exploring extrinsic proofs. It is important for me to make that distinction just to make sure that I have an understanding of both kinds of proofs and more importantly that I am looking at the big picture of the invention process in rhetoric. It makes sense now that the authors devoted a little more than 50% of their work to the intrinsic proofs. As they say, the rhetor has to invent the intrinsic proofs (267), whereas the extrinsic proofs are situated. In my opinion, inventing the proofs is the most difficult process and the one that requires the most time and effort. However, Hawhee and Crowley remind us that extrinsic proofs as well require effort and especially “art and skill” (271). Additionally, they say that rhetors may have to employ invention to be able to interpret them and use them in favor of his or her argument (267).
Even though invention is necessary to build extrinsic proofs in a discourse, the authors focus mainly in stressing out the importance of evaluating the sources or the persons from which our proofs come from. In this sense, I find that extrinsic proofs are strongly related to ethos. The authors mention four kinds of extrinsic proofs: facts, data, artifacts and testimonies (267). After reading the chapter, one can see that the reliability of each one of them depends upon the ethos of the source or the person. Ethos is related to the good character or reputation of a person and, in this case the source of facts and data. The character and reputation are strongly related to the ethics. For example, if we are talking about testimonies it is important that the witness does not have any interests involved in testifying. As the authors mention, according to Aristotle, the reliable witnesses were those that “had nothing to gain by testifying” (271). In fact, the authors recommend that when evaluating community authorities, rhetors should look into their credentials, accuracy and motives and ideologies. In regards to data and facts, the situation is very similar. When using data, rhetors should verify who discovered the data and should examine the networks of interpretation (281). The latter, I would think, is very similar to motives and ideologies.
While reading this chapter, I could not help relating it directly with the story told in Green Zone, the last movie I watched. At first glance, it is just an action movie. However, it is based on real events, the falsification of intelligence dossiers by the US government to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In words of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV in the Press release of Intelligence Committee of June of 2008 “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
A few weeks ago we discussed the ethics involved in making up data in journalism or science. We even doubt the seriousness of doing it. But what if, as in this case, we look at data falsification when it is used to take a country to war? I had a vague memory that what the movie was telling was true, but was not completely sure. I remember hearing someone say something about it back in 2004. When I went to look for information about it in newspapers, I found that the movie is quite accurate. And in my opinion it offers an interesting reflection about the importance of verifying data and facts, evaluating your sources’ credentials and reliability and most importantly their motives and ideologies, in sum, their ethos. Moreover, this shows the importance of following Hawhee and Crowley suggestions with every single source of data and witness, even those who seem the most reliable ones. Because, who would have doubt the ethics of the president and vice-president of the United States? Who would have suspected from their motives and ideologies?
Even though invention is necessary to build extrinsic proofs in a discourse, the authors focus mainly in stressing out the importance of evaluating the sources or the persons from which our proofs come from. In this sense, I find that extrinsic proofs are strongly related to ethos. The authors mention four kinds of extrinsic proofs: facts, data, artifacts and testimonies (267). After reading the chapter, one can see that the reliability of each one of them depends upon the ethos of the source or the person. Ethos is related to the good character or reputation of a person and, in this case the source of facts and data. The character and reputation are strongly related to the ethics. For example, if we are talking about testimonies it is important that the witness does not have any interests involved in testifying. As the authors mention, according to Aristotle, the reliable witnesses were those that “had nothing to gain by testifying” (271). In fact, the authors recommend that when evaluating community authorities, rhetors should look into their credentials, accuracy and motives and ideologies. In regards to data and facts, the situation is very similar. When using data, rhetors should verify who discovered the data and should examine the networks of interpretation (281). The latter, I would think, is very similar to motives and ideologies.
While reading this chapter, I could not help relating it directly with the story told in Green Zone, the last movie I watched. At first glance, it is just an action movie. However, it is based on real events, the falsification of intelligence dossiers by the US government to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In words of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV in the Press release of Intelligence Committee of June of 2008 “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
A few weeks ago we discussed the ethics involved in making up data in journalism or science. We even doubt the seriousness of doing it. But what if, as in this case, we look at data falsification when it is used to take a country to war? I had a vague memory that what the movie was telling was true, but was not completely sure. I remember hearing someone say something about it back in 2004. When I went to look for information about it in newspapers, I found that the movie is quite accurate. And in my opinion it offers an interesting reflection about the importance of verifying data and facts, evaluating your sources’ credentials and reliability and most importantly their motives and ideologies, in sum, their ethos. Moreover, this shows the importance of following Hawhee and Crowley suggestions with every single source of data and witness, even those who seem the most reliable ones. Because, who would have doubt the ethics of the president and vice-president of the United States? Who would have suspected from their motives and ideologies?
The Value of Extrinsic Proofs
In reading this chapter, I cannot help but recall similar themes that were presented in Chapter 1: Ancient Rhetorics. This chapter dovetails nicely in confirming, “that facts are not very interesting or persuasive unless they are read within a network of interpretation” (11). Although, I think I could have stopped that quotation before the word “unless,” and I would have had an apt description of the portrayal of facts or extrinsic proofs in this chapter as well as throughout the history of rhetoric.
That is not to say that extrinsic proofs are not interesting or persuasive in today’s society. Quite the contrary, as the authors point out “modern rhetoricians place a much heavier emphasis on extrinsic proofs than the ancients did” (267). This is in part due to the fact that contemporary society gravitates towards statements that present data, testimony, or simply statements that are presented in the written word as “accurate and trustworthy” (267).
This reminds me of a point I believe Christian made last class about attempting to interpret the authors’ biases towards these concepts on rhetoric: namely that the fact they seem to have biased towards the value of pathetic proofs. Can textbooks present biased information? Isn’t there a sense of irony in scholars on rhetoric presenting their own personal biases in the context of defining and classifying rhetorical arguments?
I think simply based upon the fact that Crowley and Hawhee are presenting information about rhetoric and in a way unmasking the “tricks” that rhetors employ to get the audience to believe their positions as better than their opponents, I took them as more objective and trustworthy than perhaps I should.
The authors even point out that all forms of the written word should not be taken at face value (269). They then go on to establish that even in writing this book they took this into consideration and had to quote ancient rhetoricians in order to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject as well as to validate their interpretation of the theories and practices (272).
So in not acknowledging that Crowley and Hawhee had possible bias in presenting this information and also in not acknowledging that they had their own interpretations of the process of rhetoric that they may want to instill, I was falling victim to the same theme being established in this chapter. That simply because the text was presented in written form and assumed an air of authority, it was more accurate, objective, or reliable than it possibly truly is. That is not to claim that the text has become devalued in any sense for me or my perspectives, but simply that it confirms that rhetoric is everywhere, even in textbooks or other source material that is often considered to be the master source for information on a subject.
A representation of this concept can be found in a recent New York Times Article “A Claim of Pro-Islam Bias in Textbooks http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/education/23texas.html
After reading Chapter 8, I was somewhat at a loss with what to write. One area that I found intriguing was the section that discussed the reliability of the written word. The authors state, “written documents usually required careful interpretation, and they were skeptical of their accuracy and authority as well” (269). I understand the importance of the written word every day at work. My word choice in an assignment or question may change the way that a student interprets the language. After creating an assignment for the first time, I often change aspects of it before I use it again, after discovering what was unclear or misinterpreted. Having expectations in writing can also help to support a teacher (or any profession) when a parent or student tries to argue a grade or something along those lines. When I can show them that it was clearly defined on a handout, it makes my life easier. For the first 2 or 3 years that I taught 12th grade, the graduation project assignment always presented issues that I was unsure how to handle because it was not written in the packet that we distribute to the students. What do you do with the student who gives a 4 minute presentation when the requirement is 10 to 15 minutes. Should they receive another chance? If so, how much of a penalty do they receive? After dealing with issues along those lines, I collaborated with my colleagues to clearly define the expectations including the repercussions of what will happen if the requirements are not met. This definitely helps when dealing with students who choose not to follow the rules.
On another note, the authors discuss the importance of the way that a law is written. I found an interesting law that is in use in the UK, Canada, and several states in Australia. Currently there are plans to amend the Criminal Code so that the defense of provocation in criminal trials can no longer be used. According to Lawyers Weekly, “under the changes, offenders can no longer claim to be provoked by verbal insults or adverse comments to reduce the scope of the defense being available to those who kill out of sexual possessiveness or jealousy.”
According to Australian Broadcast Corporation, in Queensland, a 16-year-old student told her 26-year-old boyfriend that she cheated on him while they were driving down the highway. He pulled off the road and repeatedly hit her over the head with a steering wheel lock. She died in the hospital two days later. Currently, the defense of provocation is only available to against a charge of murder and only reduces the conviction to manslaughter. The boyfriend was acquitted of murder, but was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in jail.
Another controversial part of the law is that the provoked must carry out their act immediately after the provocation occurred. What defines immediate? Many defendants, especially women, have lost their case on this ground. Many battered wives wait until their husband is asleep before they kill them. Many jury members do not view waiting for someone to go to sleep as an immediate act. The law reform will also change the wording from law of accident to unforeseen act. Right now, a if someone would punch someone and that person died they are provided for under the law of accident. When you punch someone, that is not really an accident, so the wording will be changed. However, the sentence in those particular cases will not change (abc.net). Overall, these cases show the importance of wording of a law which can ultimately lead to injustice.
On another note, the authors discuss the importance of the way that a law is written. I found an interesting law that is in use in the UK, Canada, and several states in Australia. Currently there are plans to amend the Criminal Code so that the defense of provocation in criminal trials can no longer be used. According to Lawyers Weekly, “under the changes, offenders can no longer claim to be provoked by verbal insults or adverse comments to reduce the scope of the defense being available to those who kill out of sexual possessiveness or jealousy.”
According to Australian Broadcast Corporation, in Queensland, a 16-year-old student told her 26-year-old boyfriend that she cheated on him while they were driving down the highway. He pulled off the road and repeatedly hit her over the head with a steering wheel lock. She died in the hospital two days later. Currently, the defense of provocation is only available to against a charge of murder and only reduces the conviction to manslaughter. The boyfriend was acquitted of murder, but was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in jail.
Another controversial part of the law is that the provoked must carry out their act immediately after the provocation occurred. What defines immediate? Many defendants, especially women, have lost their case on this ground. Many battered wives wait until their husband is asleep before they kill them. Many jury members do not view waiting for someone to go to sleep as an immediate act. The law reform will also change the wording from law of accident to unforeseen act. Right now, a if someone would punch someone and that person died they are provided for under the law of accident. When you punch someone, that is not really an accident, so the wording will be changed. However, the sentence in those particular cases will not change (abc.net). Overall, these cases show the importance of wording of a law which can ultimately lead to injustice.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Extrinsic Proofs
This is, by far, the chapter I’ve most enjoyed reading. Up until this week I’ve spent much of my time in class wondering, “Do I really get this?” The work we’ve done in class with intrinsic proofs seemed very abstract to me. This chapter on extrinsic proofs really helped clarify this whole idea of invention in the rhetorical process. It seems much more concrete – easier to manage in a sense.
One part of this chapter I really found moving was the figurative language used in Plato’s Phaedrus – the way the language personifies words when Socrates warns:
Written words … seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever. And once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it doesn’t know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong. (p. 269)
Writers give power to words, just as Plato brought words to life in the above quote. This, of course, gives rise to the subjects of interpretation and audience, as discussed at length both here and in previous chapters by Crowley and Hawhee.
On interpretation, in fourth grade, we teach students that it is the Judicial Branch of government’s job to interpret laws. While this is a difficult concept for most nine-year-olds to understand, many students have already seen Hollywood versions of our judicial system in action through various television shows such as Law and Order, etc. But the fact that the judicial system needs multiple layers to function effectively proves that interpreting words, in this case written as laws, can be a very arduous task. The hate speech example discussed in the book reminds me of last week’s discussion on pathos and the case of Snyder v. Phelps. Both dealt with First Amendment protection, hate speech, “fighting words,” and U.S. Supreme Court justices interpreting extrinsic proofs differently. As Crowley and Hawhee state, “This case demonstrates why laws must be interpreted and reinterpreted – that is why we have laws.” (p.271)
On audience, the quote refers to writing, “getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it doesn’t know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong.” I just think that this comes full circle with our discussions in previous classes about the importance of knowing your audience and choosing your words carefully.
The rest of the chapter on testimony, community vs. proximate authorities, and data brought many interesting points, as well. I’m looking forward to discussing this chapter more in depth on Thursday!
Sunday, October 10, 2010
"I Promise to Tell The Whole Truth"
This chapter was awesome. I read it while taking a driving break on my way to Savannah and at first I was not sure what I was going to write about. However, a new beloved television show and a conference session aided me in picking my blog topic. This week’s blog topic is an analysis of all extrinsic proofs.
After reading this week’s assignment, I was struck with how often extrinsic proofs are easily believed. In fact, Crowley and Hawhee write that “The version of rhetoric that is taught in school assumes that accounts based on empirical investigation are absolutely reliable” (267). This quote made me think about both the law and ABC’s new legal show, The Whole Truth. In this show, which I highly recommend, the viewer follows both the prosecution’s point of view of the crime and the defense’s. For an hour, the viewer listens to various testimonies and data reports and viewers hold their breath while the verdict is read. The truth about whether or not the defended actually committed the crime is not revealed till the very end of the show. What is so fascinating about this show is how the prosecution often fails to explore more of the circumstances surrounding a witness’ account, while the defense through the use of data collection and ability to assemble their arguments either uncovers damaging evidence against the prosecution’s testimony that produces the longed feared shadow of doubt in the jury’s mind. Thus, this show greatly impacted my reading of this chapter. After watching and then reading this chapter, I felt that Crowley and Hawhee are warning us, scholars and students alike, that we must be on the defense. All testimony and data has its flaws and we must not be afraid to identify them and correct them. Students and scholars must be willing to explore and examine all the facts. Otherwise, if they fail to do their homework, the result could be disastrous.
Crowley and Hawhee write that “Hence testimony is a statement given by a witness about some event or state of affairs. Here we include citations from the work of scholars and other authorities under the category of testimony” (268). Students are taught to use numerous sources in their research papers so that the teacher is aware that they have done the research, read the texts and formulated a well-organized argument. As teachers, we usually are suspicious about a student’s paper that does not utilize any citations. Often times, we review their previous work to note a student’s flaws, common errors and his or her command of language. If we suspect foul play, we usually call for a conference and question the student about his or her work based on our analysis of his or her quality of work.
After all, we expect citations from our students since it is impossible for them to be an expert on a subject. According to Crowley and Hawhee, teachers anticipate citations because “To quote from sources suggests that we have read ancient (past scholarship) rhetorical authorities carefully, which reinforces our ethos” (272). In other words, we utilize past scholar’s works to aid our reputation as an upcoming scholar and to showcase our ability to properly analyze and assign certain quotes to our work. If we fail to utilize past research or any research for that matter, we will be noted as a slacker and thus, our research will not be seriously taken. While at the conference this past week, I attended a session in which such a situation occurred. The session panel was comprised of two professors and two doctorate students who were all examining some idea on American culture. After all four speakers spoke, the question and answer period started and one of the doctoral students came under attack. While he spoke, he never cited any sources (highly unusual) and immediately several faculty members in the audience started to inquire about his source of information. After fifteen minutes of discussion the student admitted that he based his paper’s findings on his and his father’s own thoughts and feelings on the matter. The tension in the room was so thick but finally, a professor kindly informed him that he should do more research on the matter so that the paper would not solely be based on his father and his personal beliefs. This advice supports Crowley and Hawhee’s point that “Because we don’t know these things [‘who his family was… what his reputation or ideology affiliation were’] about authors, we cannot simply take their work at face value. Rather, we need to interpret it” (269). The conversation than turned to more pointed questions for the other panelist. However, this student’s reputation was now questioned and his work was completely disregarded by the professionals in the room. Thus, this is a modern day example of what Crowley and Hawhee mention throughout this chapter.
While reading this chapter, I was also thinking about how my former school required its teachers to spend a day in the fall and a day in the spring terms devoted to instructing our students about correct research resources. Crowley and Hawhee best sum up the whole point of these instructional days when they write that “rhetors should examine the network of interpretation through which data are filtered. Networks of interpretation give meaning to facts; without such networks, facts are pretty much unintelligible and uninteresting as well” (281). We would always discuss about how Wikipedia was not a proper source and tried to explain how other search engines, books or websites (especially those ending in .edu, .org) were both educational and resourceful. However, Crowley and Hawhee state that “This caution applies to printed materials as well as to information that circulates on the Internet” (281). After reading this statement, my thoughts immediately turned to Stephen Ambrose’s books. Several of the school’s history teachers used his books and his texts were on our school’s list of approved books that a student could utilize for a paper. However, Ambrose’s works have been questioned and it appears that Crowley and Hawhee’s warning is valid.
I really enjoyed this chapter and I am looking forward to Thursday night’s discussion.
For more information on the Ambrose issue:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/09/entertainment/la-ca-stephen-ambrose-20100509
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/national/11AMBR.html
http://hnn.us/articles/504.html
http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/10/0510ambrose.html
After reading this week’s assignment, I was struck with how often extrinsic proofs are easily believed. In fact, Crowley and Hawhee write that “The version of rhetoric that is taught in school assumes that accounts based on empirical investigation are absolutely reliable” (267). This quote made me think about both the law and ABC’s new legal show, The Whole Truth. In this show, which I highly recommend, the viewer follows both the prosecution’s point of view of the crime and the defense’s. For an hour, the viewer listens to various testimonies and data reports and viewers hold their breath while the verdict is read. The truth about whether or not the defended actually committed the crime is not revealed till the very end of the show. What is so fascinating about this show is how the prosecution often fails to explore more of the circumstances surrounding a witness’ account, while the defense through the use of data collection and ability to assemble their arguments either uncovers damaging evidence against the prosecution’s testimony that produces the longed feared shadow of doubt in the jury’s mind. Thus, this show greatly impacted my reading of this chapter. After watching and then reading this chapter, I felt that Crowley and Hawhee are warning us, scholars and students alike, that we must be on the defense. All testimony and data has its flaws and we must not be afraid to identify them and correct them. Students and scholars must be willing to explore and examine all the facts. Otherwise, if they fail to do their homework, the result could be disastrous.
Crowley and Hawhee write that “Hence testimony is a statement given by a witness about some event or state of affairs. Here we include citations from the work of scholars and other authorities under the category of testimony” (268). Students are taught to use numerous sources in their research papers so that the teacher is aware that they have done the research, read the texts and formulated a well-organized argument. As teachers, we usually are suspicious about a student’s paper that does not utilize any citations. Often times, we review their previous work to note a student’s flaws, common errors and his or her command of language. If we suspect foul play, we usually call for a conference and question the student about his or her work based on our analysis of his or her quality of work.
After all, we expect citations from our students since it is impossible for them to be an expert on a subject. According to Crowley and Hawhee, teachers anticipate citations because “To quote from sources suggests that we have read ancient (past scholarship) rhetorical authorities carefully, which reinforces our ethos” (272). In other words, we utilize past scholar’s works to aid our reputation as an upcoming scholar and to showcase our ability to properly analyze and assign certain quotes to our work. If we fail to utilize past research or any research for that matter, we will be noted as a slacker and thus, our research will not be seriously taken. While at the conference this past week, I attended a session in which such a situation occurred. The session panel was comprised of two professors and two doctorate students who were all examining some idea on American culture. After all four speakers spoke, the question and answer period started and one of the doctoral students came under attack. While he spoke, he never cited any sources (highly unusual) and immediately several faculty members in the audience started to inquire about his source of information. After fifteen minutes of discussion the student admitted that he based his paper’s findings on his and his father’s own thoughts and feelings on the matter. The tension in the room was so thick but finally, a professor kindly informed him that he should do more research on the matter so that the paper would not solely be based on his father and his personal beliefs. This advice supports Crowley and Hawhee’s point that “Because we don’t know these things [‘who his family was… what his reputation or ideology affiliation were’] about authors, we cannot simply take their work at face value. Rather, we need to interpret it” (269). The conversation than turned to more pointed questions for the other panelist. However, this student’s reputation was now questioned and his work was completely disregarded by the professionals in the room. Thus, this is a modern day example of what Crowley and Hawhee mention throughout this chapter.
While reading this chapter, I was also thinking about how my former school required its teachers to spend a day in the fall and a day in the spring terms devoted to instructing our students about correct research resources. Crowley and Hawhee best sum up the whole point of these instructional days when they write that “rhetors should examine the network of interpretation through which data are filtered. Networks of interpretation give meaning to facts; without such networks, facts are pretty much unintelligible and uninteresting as well” (281). We would always discuss about how Wikipedia was not a proper source and tried to explain how other search engines, books or websites (especially those ending in .edu, .org) were both educational and resourceful. However, Crowley and Hawhee state that “This caution applies to printed materials as well as to information that circulates on the Internet” (281). After reading this statement, my thoughts immediately turned to Stephen Ambrose’s books. Several of the school’s history teachers used his books and his texts were on our school’s list of approved books that a student could utilize for a paper. However, Ambrose’s works have been questioned and it appears that Crowley and Hawhee’s warning is valid.
I really enjoyed this chapter and I am looking forward to Thursday night’s discussion.
For more information on the Ambrose issue:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/09/entertainment/la-ca-stephen-ambrose-20100509
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/11/national/11AMBR.html
http://hnn.us/articles/504.html
http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/10/0510ambrose.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)