Chapter 8 rhetorical activity #2, page 283

1. Senses can be unreliable when they occur separately, rather than together (for example, someone could hear the voice of someone but not see them, and this could be a recording of their voice). Sight can be unreliable when one is unfamiliar with how a person looks, and they may need more time with that person to determine proper recognition of someone. Identical twins may leave on seeing one person rather than another. Ones hearing could be damaged from a loud noise, and therefore what not heard afterward may be subject to question. Discussion with others of an event could lead one to assumptions that their definitions of certain senses are less reliable than those of the majority. The amount of time that has passed may prevent one from proper recall of a situation (or may allow time to obtain proper recall), perhaps depending on the sense, the commonality of experience, attentiveness at the time, etc. Empirical evidence can be reliable when such evidences exist in conditions where other factors relate to holding the same validity present within such conditions, and other evidences are present suggesting no other factors are present to render these possibilities potentially implausible.

Testing the reliability of arguments:
Data should be provided with sources, method, and date. Testimony should meet the following 4 criteria:
1. A person must be in a position to observe the events in question.
2. conditions must be such that a witness can adequately perceive an event
3. the witness’s state of mind at the time must be conductive to her accurate observations and reporting. If this is not the case, her testimony must be modified accordingly.
4. in keeping with modern faith in empirical evidence, testimony offered by a proximate witness is more valuable than evidence offered by someone who was not present. If the proximate witness gave testimony to someone else, tests one through three must be applied to any testimony offered by the second person, as well.

note: I think this part of the question is asking to look over at least two arguments to test their reliability.

For my first argument reliability test, I will use pp. 276, Senator Obama’s 2002 explanation of his reasons for opposing the war in Iraq. Obama relies solely on data for his argument since the conditions of the war were outside of any one person’s observation. Of the data needed, sources (others statements or positions on things, etc.), and date (“Iraq poses no imminent and direct threat”) are present. I cannot determine if methods are represented in adequate ways. Obama was running for President, and the evidences of why Iraq isn’t current in threat to America was not provided…perhaps for good reasons (security of the US). Obama’s statements appear to meet the criteria of testimony condition 4.
For my second argument reliability test, I will discuss the argument of this question. It says that data must have sources, method and date present to be considered reliable. However, if these evidences can be questioned for their own validity, then they should not be considered (perhaps the method measured something else, not present in the current conditions; the source has a bias in his judgment of the way things are; and/or they are out of date to the current conditions). Other criteria also needs taken into consideration from testimony; including potential factors that could end up misleading groups of people (for example, the line of questioning used, the collaboration of those testifying prior to the incident being questioned, and/or other factors that may leave testimony with less value). Perhaps the honest interpretation of the events would lead to conditions that do not support what those present would like to continue to have present, rather than not. In sum, this part of the exercise baffles me and leaves me without any ability to answer it in ways more fitting to its request (whether it be too vague, asking more than I can offer, etc.).