Chapter 16 of Everything's an Argument was about the various types of evidence you could use when making an argument. It discusses that the kind of evidence that is most effective is dependent on what subject your paper is about. For example, in a scientific field, the most effective kind of evidence would be one that is quantitative, whereas in another kind of field, it would be not as effective or even impossible to find. It goes on and talks about specific types of evidence and when they could be used.
The type of evidence that caught my attention the most was personal evidence. It could be really powerful evidence, but the book says that it should be used when there is other evidence to back up your claim since if there was only personal experience in an argument, it usually will not hold much ground. However, it can be really interesting, so it could likely be used to draw in an audience.
The reason I found this interesting is because in my cultural anthropology classes, most of the required reading are books about field work. They usually take place in a different country and just talk about what sort of cultural aspects they see over a span of a year or two. Personal experience is the basically the only type of evidence given, yet, from my experience of the few books I have read, their claims are really compelling. I suppose it really depends on the anthropologist's ethos on whether it is effective or not though since for their evidence to have any weight whatsoever, you must really trust the author. It also depends on how he conducts research as well. If he just looks at the people from a distance, it would not be as effective as one that actually takes part in the culture's festivities. So, I guess the effectiveness of your evidence is really dependent on what you are talking about.
I feel like there's a message here about the way that cultural anthropology works. "Harder" sciences are often more concerned with statistical probabilities due to the sheer complications with truly understanding the universe. The history of humans is essentially the history of ideas. It's extremely hard to prove things about ideas. Furthermore, one of the main reasons personal evidence is hard to accept as hard evidence is that personal experience is so nuanced and unique that it can be hard to recreate outside of a perfectly controlled environment, whereas in a lab, an experiment can be recreated over and over with similar results.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, your post kind of points out a funny irony about culture vs. anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is effective in drawing people in to a story and engaging them, which is extremely important in getting people interested in one's argument. I think that culture operates much in the same way: it provides people with a means of feeling involved in a community. Although I may not have the most in-depth hold on cultural anthropology, I believe that it is more or less a summary of all the different ways people have been brought together in their own communities. Across time and all cultures, storytelling has always been a means of developing and perpetuating culture and it's pretty rad that we can observe and explain that.
Yes, I would have to agree that culture anthropology is not really like hard sciences, and I like how you said anthropology studies are essentially all idea. I feel like you explained it better than I have. Anthropology is not necessarily in the past though. I probably should have cleared up what it really was in my blog so people would understand what I was talking about. When I was talking to you in class, I said it was essentially history because of how they present the information. Sorry for the confusion!
DeleteI had no intention of showing that, but that is really interesting! It is true that culture is engaging and it really helps people get more interested in a society, much like what an anecdote does. The analogy really shows how important culture is to a society.
That can be a part of cultural anthropology, but it is really much more basic than that. It is just the study of what makes the community different from ours, and what kind of similarities they have as well. I really should have put that in my entry, sorry. Storytelling can play a huge role in anthropology though. It helps us understand what the culture has been through in the past and whatnot. It is upsetting that a lot of these stories have not been written down, so we have no way to interpret them. I think it is pretty rad too even though I do not plan to pursue a career in cultural anthropology. Thanks for your comment!
I really like this entry. I think that you really explained it very well. I think that with your example of how in the scientific world needs quantitative evidence is a perfect example. Because, yes, in any other situation that type of evidence would not be able to work and therefore fall flat on its face because that’s the only evidence you have is you. Because, when you think about it, at the end of the day, you are the one that experienced it not anyone else. I completely agree. When you mention personal evidence it gets me thinking that sometimes you cannot really use personal evidence as stated because sometimes you can never really back up something that happened to just you. People lie all the time and most of us tend to elaborate on things. I know I have done so before. So it really goes to show that sometimes our personal evidence can never really be credible unless the experience happened with someone else. I really like how you tied something you study into this as well. I find it really nice when people can relate something they are writing about to something in their life that is currently happening around them. Mas puntos for that. I also agree that when it comes down to it, if it is personal evidence, you really have to end up trusting the author and knowing that what they did was actually true and credible even though they don’t have much to back up their claims.
ReplyDeleteEvidence is very important in making an argument. It is true that certain types of evidnece is better for different types of subjects. The science field is a big field for having evidence to prove your information. Quantitative evidence is the best to have because it is hard to dispute numbers. My major is in the science field and I have to take quite a few math and physics classes to get better and learn about numbers and equations. My major is meteorology and most people don’t think that I need math to do that but they don’t realize how it revolves around math. To prove anything I need to use math. Personal evidence is good because it does draw a certain audience but like you said you need the hard evidence to back it up. Anthropology is a cool major to have. That will be fun traveling all over the world figuring new stuff out. I can see how arguments and evidence play a huge role in your major. A year or two being overseas somewhere is a long time. That leaves a lot of time to find evidence and to discover new things. I can see how personal experience would be the biggest evidence given but they have to have the hard evidence behind that too. I think it really depends on who is giving the information to deteremine how they want to put it out. I like how you said you must really trust the author. This could be tricky for someone starting out in the field; you will need to gain credibility so people can trust you.
ReplyDeleteI really like this blog post! It was interesting how you tied in your opinion and experience with evidence, it gave another way to look at it. You're right, most personal experience evidence is not considered as "good" as cold hard facts are. In the case of a major or studies like yours, emotions play a big role. It really gave me a different way of looking at arguments, because I usually see evidence as numbers, facts or truths, but personal experience really is important when making a claim.
ReplyDeleteI think something that you could improve next time is maybe adding more personality. If you change your colors and fonts and even add a picture, it shows more of you. Especially talking about personal experience and emotions in your blog.
Overall it was really well written, enlightening and interesting. You really related this to you, but also explained it in a way that someone else who hasn't read this chapter, would understand a little bit more about arguments, claims and evidence.
:)
I really liked your blog and how you worded everything. Everything was absolutely understandable. Even thought that the book claims that personal evidence is not completely accurate and doesn’t hold much ground, someone could definitely beg to differ. You for an example gave personal feedback and said that you have read a book that’s all personal experiences and the author’s claims have been extremely compelling. I like how in your blog you didn’t just write about that chapter, you really actually thought about it. I agree with you though on the fact that personal experience is powerful and sufficient. If I’m given a certain scenario that has to do with someone’s personal experience, for some reason I can relate. Even if that certain event hasn’t happened in my life, I am still able to understand that person. It might have to be the kind of person you are, but for me it works. I think a lot of it has to do with being open-minded, and of course understanding. In school it’s hard for me to understand information that’s straight to the point. When I am given evidence that I can relate to, and applies to the certain thing I learned, then it helps a lot. The way you laid out your blog was really good, too. First, you summed up chapter 16 in your own words. Then, you told us which part of the chapter really caught your eye. And lastly, you explained why it caught your attention. Great blog!
ReplyDelete