April 11, 2005
Why Rhetorica is boring…
Brian Montopoli chastises bloggers–right and left–for throwing too many haymakers and then failing to correct themselves when the punches don’t land. I certainly won’t claim to be immune to throwing such ill-considered punches. For example, I should never have written this. And just to rub it in (quite correctly so), a Rhetorica reader ordered a copy from Amazon and had it sent to me 
And I certainly won’t claim that I won’t make such mistakes in the future. But what I will claim is that I am usually careful about what I write. I do try to check out the facts. And I resist as much as possible the terrible temptation to let my snark run loose.
Posted by acline | April 11, 2005 | Posted in: Blogging |
This is the beauty of blogs, IMO. When a newspaper screws up, they will MAYBE publish a buried correction. There is no such correction in TV news. When a blogger screws up, the correction appears as soon as the facts are known. The readers make sure the correction is posted. It makes me sad/mad when I consider all the lies newspapers/TV have told us that are now part of the CW, that no one was able to correct.
So much for the history of the bathtub in America.
“CJR Daily” as Press Advertiser?
S- Question: Must one agree with examples in order to agree with the point? If one disagrees with examples, must one disagree with the point? Are examples the same as the point or do they merely offer an illustration? Can examples create unintended points? Would different examples change the point?
ac:
- Must one agree with examples in order to agree with the point?
No. You may agree with the point and find the examples irrelevant, flawed or even distracting.
- If one disagrees with examples, must one disagree with the point?
No. But if the “point” is a thesis and the examples are presented as empirical evidence in support of that thesis, then irrelevant or flawed examples may weaken, disprove, or do nothing for the thesis. Of course, you may agree or disagree with the point based on a different interpretation of the strength of the supplied examples, different examples known to you, or no examples at all.
Now, I would like to ask you the above two questions, but for each, replace the word must with the word can and then should. In other words, under what circumstances is there kairos for disagreement and in what proper proportion?
- Are examples the same as the point or do they merely offer an illustration?
What do you mean by illustration? Do you mean it as a means to clarify or explain?
- Can examples create unintended points?
Absolutely. In fact, poorly chosen examples are most prone to do that.
- Would different examples change the point?
As a transactionalist-curious person, I would have to say it is quite possible.
S- I thought it was a good idea to ask you a few questions first this time
I like those answers.
I’m winding up my day and will deal with the first two re: can/should tomorrow.
Substituting “can” and “should” creates some interesting effects. I’ll treat each one seriously, although the “can” questions are a bit odd:
Can one agree with examples in order to agree with the point?
This is what the speaker hopes. But the auditor may choose to ignore the point and challenge the examples as a way of challenging or obfuscating the point.
If one disagrees with examples, can one disagree with the point?
That’s certainly easy to do. But perhaps the auditor should also consider other routes (arguments) to the point. Offering other arguments as challenge may lead to a better understanding of the issue for both speaker and auditor.
Should one agree with examples in order to agree with the point?
No. This is a very common experience for me. I often ignore or disagree with examples in favor of dealing directly with points.
If one disagrees with examples, should one disagree with the point?
Not necessarily. We shouldn’t confuse “point” and “argument.” If I disagree with the examples, I am disagreeing with the argument. I may still agree with the point. I may have other ways of arriving at there. Perhaps the question should read this way: If one disagrees with examples, should one disagree with the argument? Yes.
- But the auditor may choose to ignore the point and challenge the examples as a way of challenging or obfuscating the point.
True, and sadly, often effective. But … how do you distinguish between challenging/obfusicating the point and (as you point out later) challenging the argument before agreeing/disagreeing with the point?
- Offering other arguments [to arrive at the same point] as challenge may lead to a better understanding of the issue for both speaker and auditor.
True, but what is the kairos for the auditor to agree with the point a priori or arguendo and provide challenging arguments that support the point?
- I often ignore or disagree with examples in favor of dealing directly with points.
I’m not clear how you deal directly with points sans examples.
- If one disagrees with examples, should one disagree with the argument?
Agreed. However, where you accept the relationship between examples and argument, you see a gulf between “the point” and argument/examples.
How do you explain that within the discipline of rhetoric?
I’m curious at this point.
Did you, as auditor, consider my response to Montopli disagreeing with the argument or the point?
What did you, as Montopoli’s auditor, consider his point(s)?
I want to also say that this explains something as your auditor.
It has seemed in the past that you have responded to my challenges with, “OK, you think my argument sucks. But what do you think of my point?”
I think I understand that approach better now.
S- I’m heading home now after a busy day. About the most I’m going to do is enjoy a cold one. I’ll reply tomorrow. But, let me respond to: “It has seemed in the past that you have responded to my challenges with, “OK, you think my argument sucks. But what do you think of my point?” Exactly.
OK, ac, I’ll check back tomorrow.
I guess you could say that President Bush’s argument for removing Saddam sucked, but he had a good point.
S- re: “how do you distinguish between challenging/obfuscating the point and (as you point out later) challenging the argument before agreeing/disagreeing with the point?”
Good question. As I said, those substitutions lead to some odd effects
These do seem to be the same, don’t they?
re: “but what is the kairos for the auditor to agree with the point a priori or arguendo and provide challenging arguments that support the point?”
This is interesting. When I wrote that answer, I wasn’t thinking in terms of kairos (although it is always present) other than assuming what we would naturally expect as part of a Platonic dialectic, in which one option is for the interlocutors to accept the point and try to figure out why it is so–that better understanding I mentioned. I assumed in this case that the interlocutors agree on the point.
re: “I’m not clear how you deal directly with points sans examples.”
In other words, you deal with the conclusion as given outside of the argument used to reach it. This actually happens all the time because we all make short work of complex arguments. Every commonplace is essentially an argument and conclusion accepted whole. We don’t need examples or and explicit statement of the argument. You can treat any conclusion as a commonplace. It’s like saying: “Okay, this appears to be true…now how do we get there?” Backwards, yes. But I find the exercise interesting.
re: “where you accept the relationship between examples and argument, you see a gulf between “the point” and argument/examples. How do you explain that within the discipline of rhetoric?”
Rhetoric is about a great many things as you know. Constructing arguments is just one of those things that it shares with logic. While I have certainly studied and taught the construction of arguments (using all the tools of rhetoric, from logic to fallacy), I simply don’t find this part of rhetoric as interesting as the study of intention. That’s merely to say that when I approach a text critically, I’m looking at intention first. I deal with most of the other stuff, too. By approaching it this way, however, it allows me to set aside argument (temporarily) and look at conclusions in a different way, i.e. What does this speaker intend? How does his intention conform to ________? How does he construct intention? How does that construction affect the conclusion? Questions of construction lead me backward to the argument.
re: “Did you, as auditor, consider my response to Montopoli disagreeing with the argument or the point? What did you, as Montopoli’s auditor, consider his point(s)?”
I simply asked you those question because I found it interesting that you seemed so concerned with his examples. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a very standard way of critically approaching a text. I saw an opportunity to engage you in a conversation that might enlighten both of us about how we each approach a text. And I think it’s working
I was reacting to Montopoli’s point (as I understood it) regarding the metaphorical throwing of haymakers that don’t land. I was actually using that opportunity to do something that I had failed to do earlier: acknowledge Charles Knell for sending me a copy of the bin Laden book.
re: I assumed in this case that the interlocutors agree on the point.
Perhaps Aristotle said it best, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” That’s what I had in mind when I wrote, “challenging the argument before agreeing/disagreeing with the point”. Challenging the strength of an argument is a way to entertain without accepting. In fact, the auditor may choose to play devil’s advocate with the speaker as a way of forming and testing better arguments for the point. Would that approach be much different than “accept the point and try to figure out why it is so.”
re: Backwards, yes. But I find the exercise interesting.
But isn’t that a deductive argument, rather than an inductive one? If the auditor realizes that the speaker is using induction, might he not test the argument (transactionally) using deduction?
re: intention
I completely understand this approach. I’ve found it particularly useful in communicating with my wife and daughters (or the opposite sex in general ;-).
“Questions of construction lead me backward to the argument.” is a good way to get “in sync” with a deductive thinker. But I’ve often found (especially among journalists) laziness in making deductive arguments from assumed generalities that may not extend past their own (or “professional”) culture/ideology. In fact, I’ve often found that journalists will attempt to expand acceptance of an assumed generality with a weak deductive argument in a way that assumes agreement on “the point” and that the reader is deficient for disagreeing with either the point or the argument.
re: concerned with his examples and enlighten both of us
You mean you found my inductive critique interesting and engaged me in conversation about approaching text critically using deduction?
BTW, when critically reading, and discussing with you, the rhetorical penumbra of text, I tend to refer to the Critical Meter.
In this case, primarily: Idea Criticism (Topics) and Critical questions for detecting bias
I have a thesis that much of what gets categorized as “MSM” journalism (must have an editor) can actually be sub-categorized successfully as a combination of libertarian/social responsibility, inductive/deductive/illogical. Illogical covers the he said/she said-fairness/objectivity approach.
S- I’m happy your making such specific use of that work. That’s what I put it there for.
As for… I have discovered that Aristotle, and the ancient Greeks in general (especially the Sophists), often said it best
re: backwards
Yes, deductive. And it is a good test.
re: “You mean you found my inductive critique interesting and engaged me in conversation about approaching text critically using deduction?”
Yes. But, I would add that my intention also included persuading you to see things my way
…not in any political sense, but in the sense of a better understanding of how I think about things.