| Topic Name: |
Medical School or Law School? |
| Message Name: |
Huh? |
| Date Posted: |
10/13/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
Despite the fact that Karen distances herself from the credibility debate, credibility *is* important to arguments.
You see, "argument" is far more than simply the verbalization of the premise, premise, conclusion structure of formal deductive logic. Rather argument is situated within procedural (generally dialectic) and rhetorical worlds in which complete information cannot exist or is not germane (e.g. in issues involving normative matters).
Credibility is one tool that assists us in evaluating arguments in a chaotic world of competing claims and distortions (or absense) of information. While one would be correct in asserting that the credibility of the advocate of a position does not influence the formal logical validity or soundness of an argument, that does *not* mean that credibility is irrelevant in the realm of argumentation.
Anyone who attempts to separate credibility from argument is probably either (a) completely ignorant of argumentative and/or rhetorical theory or (b) an academic with a hell of a lot of thinking and research behind her, which will be necessary to defend against the impending onslaught.
I think we know which is more likely in this case. |
| Message: |
I have distanced myself from the credibility debate? Apparently your attention to detail is lacking. I have repeatedly espoused credibility throughout this thread. DocMike would disagree with you. Here are some of his statements in retaliation to me
"You gather dirt on people to undermine their credibility before you even try to address their argument."
"Who I am does not change anything. You resort to ad hominem rather to take on my argument. I hope you are better at what you do for living than you are at not appearing demented."
|
|
