Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Trimester Two, Blog Six (due 1/25 at midnight)
Reread page 487 in Everything’s an Argument (you should have already read it when you read Chapter 16). Provide your own example of a situation and its context in which evidence other than hard, factual evidence is just as, if not more, advantageous. The example you provide can be one based on a real experience (such as the one noted in the book), or you can formulate your own hypothetical experience. Address, as necessary, the rationale for the evidence you believe to be the most persuasive.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The age old controversy of religon is definitely an example in which multiple types of "evidence are necessary. A friend and I were hypothetically conversing our perspectives on religon. I said that I believed in Christ, partly basing my answer on feeling rather than logic. Although intuition was used as part of my evidence I realized that I needed to base my opinion on something more. I did a little research on the matter, and the evidence I mainly found were prophecies, and how they matched up to current times. In this scenario, a gut feeling, and normal acceptance of what had always been was not enough. Scientific research has methodically proven that it is nearly impossible to consider that the Earth was created without a higher power. Although my friend and I still did not come to agreeing terms, I found the proof I need to rest my case.
One instance where evidence other than hard evidence is better is when talking about the big bang theory versus intelligent design. Interesting to me is that most scientists believe in evolutionary design, or the big bang, yet this can easily be disproved with science. Calculations can be made to show how small a chance there is that the universe ended up like it did without a Creator. In this situation there is no hard evidence because no one was around when this happened, but with the aid of science we can see how much more of a chance there is for one than the other.
Since we are going to see a production this week, I think an obviously topic to discuss is success of a drama. Hard facts and statistics are no way to judge the theater or the success of a show. Ticket sales are not the sign of a good show and sometimes reading how expensive the sets are or what the critics think does not show anything. These facts and statistics are simple opinions or the results of publicity and the people in charge of business. How great a show is is determined by the opinions of the audience and the public. Facts are all ridiculous and unimportant to how much a production is valued by an individual.
One situation I found that hard facts was not the best route was when I had a discussion with a close friend about the existance of God. (I see that others have also gone through this experience.) My friend had lost faith in a higher being because of some very unfortunate things happening in her life. She thought that there was no reason to have faith in something you could not see and something that could possibly be a fabrication of our imaginations. Luckily, I had a book on hand called "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. This book is about all the objections to Christianity. It was written by a former atheist. He is a journalist who needed proof that Jesus Christ really did exist and all the things of the Bible are true. I was able to use these hard facts to back up my appeal to having faith in her heart that someone is looking out for her. In my case, hard facts was what she needed, but later on in her journey, facts that appeal to emotions and faith will be needed/wanted.
Of course I'll take the political route on the topic ...
A circumstance to support the claim that sometimes other evidence other than hard facts and statistics is necessary is the War in Iraq. According to our Intelligence Agency and government, all research done on Iraq showed that, without a doubt, Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction- yet we never found them. This proves the argument that sometimes the cold, hard facts that come from research aren't the end all to an argument. Maybe if we would have used our intelligence to "strategically" question some Iraqi citizens to see what was going on, we could have been more successful.
An instance where evidence is better than hard evidence is when talking about the theory of evolution. For hundreds of years society has pondered upon the theory of the evolution of mankind and of animals, and has yet to come up with a definite answer. The reason for this is because there is no hard evidence. Although certain studies have shown that evolution has occurred on small scales, such studies were produced by Darwin in the Galapagos Islands, there is no hard evidence of the evolution of mankind. So when there is no hard evidence to prove a point, it becomes pointless and relies on other types of evidence. I personally believe that evolution has occurred on a small scale, but overall I believe that mankind is the same as it was two thousand years ago.
Everyday we look at the weather to see what is projected for that day, week. or month. We all listen to the "Weather Man" on TV and want to know what to expect. Most of us believe what we see on the news or here on the radio, but is there any hard evidence to prove what he says will happen. Sure once the day has past we have evidence of what happened but before that we just believe what he says due to calculations and weather readings. The little evidence that the weather man sees and uses to project the weather we trust everyday.
Post a Comment