Argumentation based on witness testimony of first hand experience carries a good deal of weight in matters of modern rhetoric. The most obvious and widespread example of this lyes with in out judicial system. Every trial consists of attorneys questioning witnesses they have gathered that have first hand experience or expertise in a matter of the case at hand.
According to Sharon Crowley, author of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, the validity of testimony given by a proximate witness must stand several tests. First: " a witness must be in position to over see the events in question." Second: "conditions must be such that a witness can adequately perceive an event." Third: "the witness's state of mind at the time must be conductive to her accurate observation and reporting."
As long as these testimonies by proximate witnesses pass the previously mentioned tests than in modern rhetoric first hand experiences are nearly irrefutable. The only plausible event that could derail the testimony of a proximate witness is one of a community authority that both disagrees with the proximate witness's testimony as a possible event and is a expert in the subject. For example: A proximate witness testifies that he heard his neighbor shoot his wife. Normally, this testimony would secure the prosecution of the husband. However, if a local doctor n testifies that the husband was not physically able to shoot a gun (lets say the husband had arthuritis and could not grasp the gun tight enough to pull the trigger) than the testimony of the proximate authority would be refuted.
Sitting down and watching any crime show where the crime goes to court, there is always a problem with the "prosecutor" and the "witness" in their testimony. It's really interesting to actually see the academic reasoning behind it in the text. Witnesses can be problematic if they do not fit the criteria Crowley mentions. It's become one of those things that I try to stay in a calm state of mind and be as observant as possible so if a crime were to take place, I would be a good witness. Perhaps this is me being a sound and contributing member of society. Perhaps I should watch less crime television. Either way, it's fascinating to see the basic principles shown (and not always completely noted) on television have relation and evidence supporting these premises in real life discourse.
ReplyDeleteYour example is very well thought out. I also like how you laid things out here. Witnesses, so I have heard, are horrible to use, eye witnesses that is. The mind can do some funny things in how you remember things. Wonderful job laying out the text!!!
ReplyDeleteAgreed, and I would argue that the witnesses used in many court cases are not simply innocent bystanders that happened to be in the right place at the time. They are chosen carefully by lawyers and are briefed before court proceedings to have pre-scripted answers for court.
ReplyDelete