Tag Archives: evidence

Reading Reflection #9: Evidence Part 2

Posted on by
Reply
  1. The scientific method is a method of doing research that requires you to take certain steps in formulating a theory. The steps include making an observation or asking a question, coming up with a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis with an experiment, and if the hypothesis holds up, you analyze the data and draw a conclusion, then voice your results. If the hypothesis does not hold up you should go back to step one, ask another question. Replication is a key characteristic of the scientific method, the fact that the experiment can be done again with the same results makes this evidence valuable. Whats more is, in conducting the experiments, researchers often use different variables to control the experiments in a way that makes the findings more verifiable and precise. Which brings me to the third characteristic, precision; researchers use more precise language rather than ambiguous language in making their claim, unlike the former evidence we read about.
  1. Surveys can be unreliable for a number of reasons, dishonesty in answering the questions, ambiguous wordings of questions, people not taking there time in the survey and just answering randomly, and many surveys are biased in their questioning. Some things you can look for in finding if a survey is reliable is the length of the survey, how the survey is conducted/the procedures behind it, the context, and how the questions are worded.
  2. The pros of research studies are in my answer to number one about scientific method. But some cons of research study are that results are not proof of a conclusion, they are only support for conclusions, (ARQ p.104). Another con is that some research studies have not been replicated yet and so are of less quality than ones that have been replicated again and again. Some studies can not be replicated and were false in their findings or their findings were, as Browne and Keeley put it; “greatly exaggerated.” (ARQ p.104)
  1. What is the quality of the source of the report? Is the article that contains the study peer reviewed? Another question to ask is how recently was the research conducted and could the findings have changed over time? Look for when the study was published whether at the same time your source was published or before, (you can find the year of a study either in the in-text citation within your souces article or in their work cited page). And one more, Is there any evidence of strong-sense critical thinking? In the sources reasonings, you can find if he/she is using evidence that is bound to his/her beliefs or if the reasonings are more open to all sides of an issue.
  2. A rival cause is an alternative causation to an event. You should start looking for one when the communicator is attempting to assert the cause of something. There are key phrases that should alert you to the possibility of a rival cause; including but not limited to: Leads to, influences, is linked to, and increases the likelihood. Some questions to ask yourself when faced with “causal thinking” (ARQ p.121) are: Can I think of any other way to interpret the evidence? What else might have caused this act or these findings? If I looked at the event from another point of view, what might I see as important causes? If this interpretation is incorrect, what other interpretation might make sense? (ARQ p.122)
  3. correlations are 2 or more events that seem to be connected in some way and can look like a cause to eachother. According to google, (because I couldn’t put into words what a cause is), a cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. The cause is more difficult to demonstrate then the correlation because there are so many combinations of events that can influences another event that the string of events that happen in order for another event to happen is often overlooked in favor of a general cause.
  4. Conclusion: Increased amounts of germs and bacteria on college campuses cause higher rates of illness in college students.
    Reason/cause: College students are less likely to sanitize living areas and common areas on campus, which in turn creates excessive germs on surfaces and in the air leading to more sickness in students
    Rival (other possible) causes: College students could contract the illness elsewhere and spread it even while cleaning living areas on campus. Or, there could be a pandemic and the school hasn’t closed down events in light of it and the rate of students being ill increases.
    Evaluation (How strong is the original argument? What’s missing?): Not very strong. Where does the communicator get this information? How does he/she know that students aren’t cleaning their living areas? How does she know there is an excess of germs on surfaces and in the air? The communicator seems to be pulling causes out of the air when there are many other possibilities of why students are getting sick. His/her evaluation of what is making the students sick is “a cause, not the cause.” (ARQ p.123)

Reading Reflection #8: Evidence Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

According to Keeley, Stuart M. and Neil M. Brown, Asking the Right Questions, evidence is information used by the writer or speaker that helps to validate certain claims, or reasons, he/she has made in an argument. (p. 91)

Personal Experience: Using things from your past experiences as evidence to back an argument. A possible problem with this one is what Keeley and Brown call “hasty generalization,” for example, if this is the case with my experience, then this must be the case for every experience that has these parameters

Case Examples: Vivid stories of events to help support a claim and to get the audience interested in whatever is being argued. While this can be good to use in helping an audience to understand the issue, this isn’t hard evidence.

Testimonials: These are reviews of events. Some can be false, especially if seeing them on the internet.

Appeals to Authority: This kind of evidence is better then the types that precede this type of evidence. You are invoking the words or works of an expert in a certain field. Trouble is the expert might be wrong, or experts contradict themselves withing the same field of expertise.

The article I read, Why Questions (Good or Bad) Matter, by Marcello Fiocco, is an article of how important it is to ask questions. He used three types of evidence in his article. Spoke from experience, “whose job it is to ask questions” (Fiocco), as a professor of philosophy and he spoke of his children saying, “I say this as a father of two small children with a tendency to ask questions for which the answers are clearly not the goal.” Case example, where he spoke of a girl who asked seemingly stupid questions about the origins of math on her tiktok page where everybody made fun of her for doing so. Except when (appealing to authority) the experts came and said that she wasn’t stupid and couldn’t really give her a straight answer to her philosophical questions because they, the experts, didn’t know. I thought that the case evidence was relevant and interesting, made me that much more engaged in the topic and got me thinking of “is there stupid questions? Or should I have more tolerance for people and their questions?” The evidence fit the argument well. Now for the personal experience evidence; I thought this could have been left out and it would have been a better argument for it. His assumption that I care for his experience/opinion or think him an expert on the issue because of it was wrong. Fiocco’s appeal to my emotions with his opinion, “I believe that asking questions should be of the utmost importance to anyone who cares about themselves or others,” was actually kind of insulting and made me angry. If he would have just stuck with the case evidence and the experts, other than himself, the article would have been awesome.

Fiocco, Marcello, Why Questions (Good and Bad) Matter, The conversation, 2 November 2020, https://theconversation.com/why-questions-good-and-bad-matter-147412