[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
evidence
I am obviously not making myself clear about one of the
problems I see with the current use of evidence when I
say that most evidence that debaters use does not
include "data." Several people have responded that
they agree that evidence should include "warrants" and
"analysis." To me these responses indicate that I am
being misunderstood so I am looking for someone to help
me make myself clearer.
For me, (following Toulmin), "warrants" and "analysis"
are not a part of evidence. Evidence is the building
block of an argument which Toulmin variously calls
"grounds" or "data." The "warrant" or "analysis" is
different and comes after "grounds" or "data" and is
used to come to a "claim."
My complaint about "evidence" use in debate is that the
"evidence" does not contain "grounds" or "data." Thus,
it is not really "evidence." To hear a debater report
an expert's conclusion (claim) or analysis (warrant)
is, for me, insufficient. I want to know "On what
grounds did this expert get to this claim?" or "What is
the data that the expert used to come to this
conclusion?" To hear people respond with "warrant" or
"analysis" begs the question.
This line of thought is also related to the question of
author's qualifications. While I am not totally in
agreement with Pat Gehrke that "qualifications are
cheap," I agree with him that qualifications beg the
question of "What data does the author have to go on."
While Mr. Gehrke would accept "amazingly intelligent
analysis as to the difficulties of submolecular
engineering" from a "13-year old," I would be more
interested in the data that the 13-year old or the Phd
used to come to the conclusion. Opinions are cheap.
Everyone has one. Data is important.
If someone else can help me think of a better way to
make this thought clear, I'd appreciate your help.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page