Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
CT1 - Credibility criteria (2&3)
Transcript of CT1 - Credibility criteria (2&3)
Section B - Credibility Criteria
Corroborating evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some evidence. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X's car later that day he noticed green paint on its fender.
The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government official
A bility to perceive
V ested interest
Corroboration = comparing more than one claim and establish points of agreement.
If there is independent agreement between claims from different sources, this makes these claims more credible – that is, more likely to be honest representations, and therefore more believable.
If there is independent agreement between claims from different sources, this makes these claims more credible
What is generally said or believed about the character of a person or an organisation
An ability to see or hear the event.
a prejudice in favour of one side rather than another.
Consider whether a witness or interviewee would gain from making a false or biased or selective claim.
When evidence or an argument contains two claims which can(not) both be correct at the same time
Neutrality - Being impartial; having no reason to favour either side in a dispute or difference of opinion
Skills, experience and training that give someone specialist knowledge and judgement to give sound evidence.
Lesson 2 - ABVINE!
1. To practice typical exam questions on each of them
1. To identify the meaning of credibility, plausibility & CRAB VINE
2. To understand the meaning of each criterion
We are more likely to believe a witness if another person corroborates his or her account or if the account.....
On the basis of their professions or similar attributes, even though this sounds like stereotyping. Clergy, doctors, police and lawyers are expected to be honest so we could expect them to be able to give honest accounts of events.
Examples of organisations
* The Times
* The Guardian
* Government websites
So whether an eyewitness were able to see well, considering factors such as distance, weather conditions, distractions, obstacles and time of day.
Primary Source - Has found out the phenomenon at first hand (probably an observation or survey)
Secondary source is a pre-existing one, you reading a document about an event
E.g. by winning a court case and gaining compensation or avoiding loss of reputation.
or, for example in the case of media sources, concern about National Security, election success or attracting more readers may influence the slant of a story
Don't forget it can be positive..... E.g. Professionals have a vested interest in presenting accurate and unbiased accounts to preserve their reputation.
Ensure you know the difference between Neutrality, Bias & Vested Interest
Lack of Neutrality - That an individual is likely to favour a particular positive or party because of emotional ties.
People lacking neutrality may not tell the whole truth because of fellow feeling for others involved.
Those with vested interest might lie for personal gain or to avoid harm to themselves.
Bias - Usually is an organisation, news medium, report
Have a go at deciding which criterion you would use for each document/source/evidence
How quickly can you describe a word without actually saying it?
You cant say the word on the card
You cant say ‘rhymes with’ or ‘sound like’
Refer to the newspaper article - identify where witnesses evidence is corroborated
Article - How far is the credibility of Andrew Atkins
strengthened by his reputation? (Activity 33)
Refer to P75
1. Class discussion - QuA
2. In pairs -Article - Does the criterion ability to perceive strengthen or weaken the evidence of William Blake? (Activity 26)
Activity 29 A
Activity 31 - Identify the sources who have a vested interest. Do these vested interest strength or weaken any claims made
COULD ALSO BE CONSISTENCY
Difference between Corroboration & this Criterion??
Corroboration refers to whether the accounts of different witnesses or sources agree with each other. Looking for consistency or inconsistency within one person's account of events is a means of judging the credibility of that piece of evidence itself.
Article - Activity 28
Identify any consistencies or inconsistencies in individual witnesses' evidence
Activity 30 - Identify people who should be neutral
Activity 32 b
Refer to the article - identify sources who have specialist expertise and the area of their expertise.
Is the source's expertise relevant to any claims made?
Enjoy your Christmas!