Forensics and forensics

UNIT 1

Read the text:

Forensic science is the application of scientific knowledge and methodology to legal problems and criminal investigation. Forensic science encompasses various fields of science including anthropology, biology, genetics, medicine and many others, linguistics being added most recently. Sometimes called simply forensics this term could be used with different meanings. Dictionaries provide the following definitions of the term (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Forensic+Science):

Forensics is the use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law; scientific tests or techniques used in the investigation of crimes. The other definition is the following: Forensics is the art or study of argumentation and formal debate.

Many universities offer forensics programs to train communication and public speaking skills through the performance of individual Events and Debate.

Forensic competition is a popular intercollegiate tournament in the USA which includes such events as impromptu speaking, informative speaking, prose interpretation, extemporaneous speaking, persuasive speaking, dramatization of literature, debates etc. Forensics competitors present their performances about 4-10 minutes in length, while debate students interact with students from other colleges’ teams. The competitors are evaluated on their ability to effectively organize, deliver and refute arguments

Conducting debate research involves gathering information to support your side of the argument and information that supports your opponent’s side of argument so that you can effectively invalidate your opponent argument.

The most common approaches to teaching arguments are formal, that is considering arguments as systems or structures. The formal approach developed by Stephen Toulmin has become popular in supporting students’ argumentation skills. The other approach is critical thinking.

In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:

1. Claim

Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.”

2. Data

The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.”

3. Warrant

The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

4. Backing

Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”

5. Rebuttal

Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”

6. Qualifier

Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”

The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.

This layout of argumentation was based on legal arguments and intended to be used to analyze the rationality of arguments typically found in the courtroom, then it was found applicable to the field of rhetoric and communication. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Toulmin)

To create an argument you have to:

1. State your claim;
2. Support it with facts (data) arranged singly;
3. For each fact, give the evidence for the fact (warrant);
4. For each warrant, state the quality of its validity (backing);
5. For each warrant and its backing, think of an opposing point of view (rebuttal);

Example:

A claim – it is morally right to use animals for testing new medicines;

Data to support the claim – the law (Scientific Procedures Act) protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment;

A warrant to connect the data to the claim – the Scientific Procedures Act is strictly enforced;

Backing – the framework of Home Office Inspections of testing labs;

Qualifier – animal testing is morally acceptable when there is no other scientifically comparable alternative;

Rebuttal – no, animal life is morally on a par with human life;

I. Discuss the following questions:

1. What is forensic science?

2. What two meanings does the term forensics have?

3. What are forensics programs at universities intended for?

4. What does students’ performance at forensics tournament include?

5. What does debate research involve?

6. Why is the information of opponent’s argument necessary?

7. What are the main approaches to teaching arguments?

8. Who developed one of the most popular formal models of argument?

9. What are the components of Toulmin’s model of an argument?

10. Could this layout of argumentation be used in the court?

II. Match the terms and their definitions:

Date: 2015-09-25; view: 595; Нарушение авторских прав