Sunday, January 26, 2020

Wise words from a colleague about respecting your sources

Dean Rhoads of Trinity Prep wrote this as an RFD for a chamber he parlied at Sunvitational a few weeks ago, and, with his kind permission, I'm posting it here: 

This isn't really an explanation about rankings since every student was, to some degree, a participant in the practice I want to discuss.
We live in polarized country where there's no longer any consensus about what is real and true. Fake news is the accusation of our president when others disagree with him about reality. However, this didn't originate with Mr. Trump. It started back in 1968 when the mainstream press started reporting on the riots surrounding the Democratic Convention in Chicago. Conservatives felt the press had lost its objectivity when condemning police brutality against war protesters. Conservative radio talk show hosts actively promoted an alternative narrative and built a listener base that saw the world differently than those who watched only the major news outlets. Fox News came on the scene to promote a different narrative. Since then, the internet has allowed us to fragment into alternative news sources which are largely viewed by partisans who already agree with the point of view.
This is why I really want you to consider adding source citations and publication dates to the evidence you offer in your speeches. In a contentious world, it is important for rational people to assess the credibility of the sources being used to support an argument. I prefer to hear from sources that I judge to be more or less objective in preference to ones with a decided bias that promotes a particular point of view. I try to be aware of my biases and to avoid advocacy from either the left or the right.
It is difficult to establish an objective reality that accurately and truthfully describes reality because we are limited by our senses and technology and emotions to perceiving only partially the actual or complete truth. But we must try. Otherwise, arguments becomes impossible to evaluate because they are nothing more than competing claims.
You did a superb job of mixing reason and rhetoric to advance your positions, but for many of you, argument structure is weak. Arguments need a claim, a warrant, and an impact, to be effective. It is the warrant that needs you attention in the manner I have described.
Good luck to you all.