intelligence/credibility

[BARTANEN@UPS.EDU]

I am troubled by the assumption in Mr. Roskoski's posting that the 
credibility of an idea can be separated from its source.  Rhetorical 
scholars from Aristotle to McCroskey have consistently found credibility to 
be based on the wisdom/knowledge/expertise of a source, the 
honesty/trustworthiness of a source, and the good will of a source.  It is 
the first of these components of credibility which seems to be at issue in 
this Murphy-Roskoski (and others) discussion.  

Matt is correct that the TRUTH of relativity would be the same if the idea 
came from a drunken lunatic in the Bastille, but the CREDIBILITY of that 
idea in the scientific community (credibility always being a commodity 
granted by an audience in a given context) would not be as high as if it 
were presented by a recognized scientist.  Now the drunken lunatic's NEXT 
scientific idea would certainly be given a greater listen once the 
community had accorded her credit for relativity, and if she published 
articles subject to blind review by a group of scholarly peers, her 
credibility would grow.  Of course, that would not mean each subsequent 
idea would be true, only that each would carry credibility accordant with 
the audience's recognition of her expertise.

Argument scholars who have put their ideas forward to be tested by the 
publication process earn requisite credibility among those who respect that 
process.  First year debaters, most graduate students, and some members of 
the coaching community have not earned credibility through that process.  
That does not mean that they are less trustworthy, or have less good will 
toward the activity, or that they have less native intelligence.  Some may 
have tested their ideas in other ways, such as through convention 
presentations, major leadership positions, or consistently successful 
programs and earn credibility accordingly.  But in terms of "intellectual 
par" in discussions of debate theory, those who have tested their theories 
in the jury of peer review will generally be accorded greater credibility.

I have also been reading material on student development, particularly 
related to ways of knowing.  Whether one grants more credence to 
Perry's study of male students, or Belenky et al.'s study of female 
students, or Baxter Magolda's more recent study of men and women students, 
the patterns are clear:  people develop as knowers in fairly consistent 
ways through and beyond their college years.  The highest level of knowing, 
contextual knowing, is rarely evident during college (3% of sample) and 
increases to about 12% in the year following graduation (Baxter Magolda, 
Reasoning and Knowing in College, 1993, p. 72).  "The key element of 
contextual knowing is an individually created perspective constructed 
through judging evidence in a context.  Independent knowing [an "everything 
goes" "everything is equal" level which characterizes some seniors and the
majority of first year graduate students] is transformed from being 
completely independent of existing knowledge and context to being dependent 
on both.  The increasing complexity of contextual knowing stems from the 
necessity of analyzing and assessing existing knowledge, weighing the 
particularities of the context, and developing one's point of view within 
these constraints.  The awareness that some judgments are better than 
others increases the pressure to construct views carefully." (p. 188).
This reading gives me another reason for agreeing with Mr. Murphy that 
first year debaters are not intellectual equals with published scholars in 
the field.  Indeed, it seems to me that having debaters read, tackle, and 
cite credible authors is an important way that the activity develops them 
as knowers.  They can test their own ideas as well (which is what a number 
of the postings on use of evidence seem to champion), but need to 
understand that in the test of new knowledge against existing knowledge, 
credibility of the source cannot be divorced from credibility of the idea.

Kris Bartanen

---

• Prev by Date: ADA Balloting Results
• Next by Date: Real-timin'!
• Prev by thread: ADA Balloting Results
• Next by thread: Real-timin'!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page