Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic"

From RhetorClick

Robert L. Scott begins “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” by explaining how in classical rhetoric (such as Plato’s portrayal in the Socratic dialogues) there is an absolute "Truth." Scott argues against this notion of an absolute or definitive Truth. Drawing on the work of Stephen Toulmin, Scott first explains how through the “analytic argument” (i.e., the kind of argument used in the traditional syllogism (see: Glossary), 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.

See Also

Authors

Articles