"On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" by Robert L. Scott
From RhetorClick
(Created page with "Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialog...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues), some people can know the “truth” and must use rhetoric to lead others to the truth. Yet Scott disagrees. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, he first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism), one cannot actually gain any empirical knowledge about the world. This is because by nature, the facts of the world are contingent and dependent on time, whereas analytic arguments are meant to be immutable and time-independent. Scott then discusses Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede’s views on debate, saying that the “cooperative critical inquiry” used in debate is a more accurate means for finding—or creating—truth. Scott then explains how understanding the nature of truth has important ramifications in ethics. One must attempt to make the proper moral choices even though no objective standard of truth for ethics actually exists. | + | [[Robert L. Scott]] begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues), some people can know the “truth” and must use rhetoric to lead others to the truth. Yet Scott disagrees. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, he first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism), one cannot actually gain any empirical knowledge about the world. This is because by nature, the facts of the world are contingent and dependent on time, whereas analytic arguments are meant to be immutable and time-independent. Scott then discusses Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede’s views on debate, saying that the “cooperative critical inquiry” used in debate is a more accurate means for finding—or creating—truth. Scott then explains how understanding the nature of truth has important ramifications in ethics. One must attempt to make the proper moral choices even though no objective standard of truth for ethics actually exists. |
Latest revision as of 15:05, 7 April 2011
Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in the common conception of classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues), some people can know the “truth” and must use rhetoric to lead others to the truth. Yet Scott disagrees. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, he first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism), one cannot actually gain any empirical knowledge about the world. This is because by nature, the facts of the world are contingent and dependent on time, whereas analytic arguments are meant to be immutable and time-independent. Scott then discusses Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede’s views on debate, saying that the “cooperative critical inquiry” used in debate is a more accurate means for finding—or creating—truth. Scott then explains how understanding the nature of truth has important ramifications in ethics. One must attempt to make the proper moral choices even though no objective standard of truth for ethics actually exists.
