tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post113744775815215450..comments2023-09-02T21:41:54.953-05:00Comments on ST-v-SW.Net: The Blog: Confessions and Fundamental DifferencesGuardianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01284444370958467313noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1138006554271866152006-01-23T02:55:00.000-06:002006-01-23T02:55:00.000-06:00I was in fact referring to those dishonestly conti...I was in fact referring to those dishonestly continueing to peddle pro-EU rhetoric in that example. They have clearly, knowingly, and repeatedly made the choice to defy the great body of evidence (or worse, corrupt the evidence until it supports their arguments!).<BR/><BR/>Rhetoric and science can only be used together effectively when proceeding from the scientific standpoint, and incorporating known facts into discussing a question in a rational manner! This is not done by certain persons you have had experiences with, rather, the activities in the preceding paragraph seem more likely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1137961960568672132006-01-22T14:32:00.000-06:002006-01-22T14:32:00.000-06:00The post above is quite correct, from the point of...The post above is quite correct, from the point of view of an orator. That is to say, rhetorical persuasion efforts without any reason whatsoever are quite ineffective, and indeed probably cease to be rhetorical persusasion at all. Rhetoric needs at least shoddy reasoning to enable it to be.<BR/><BR/>However, my point (and that of Jedi Master Spock, I think) is based on the opposite point of view, i.e. the view from the scientific method. The scientific method is, by its nature, opposed to the inclusion of rhetorical persuasion devices. Clever turns of phrase and carefully-selected argument formulations are antithetical to being led by the evidence alone toward the most reasonable conclusion.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that the two must never meet, or that persuasion is invariably evil. Indeed, the modern creationist agenda has only recently forced scientists (as opposed to pro-evolution hobbyists) to wake up and realize that they must engage the enemy on their own terms.<BR/><BR/>But still it is a marriage of necessity, and not the foundational bedrock of the evolution argument. This is not the case in regards to SD.Net's pro-EU rhetoric.Authorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784914528396175700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1137907837888513412006-01-21T23:30:00.000-06:002006-01-21T23:30:00.000-06:00I respectfully disagree. The scientific method can...I respectfully disagree. The scientific method can in fact make a powerful ally to effective rhetorical devices, but it is also a dangerous ally.<BR/><BR/>The art of persuasion is only really effective if it is backed up by strong evidence and factual information. Witness what occurs when rhetoric is used without support: dishonest argument and efforts to distort the truth in any way possible to convince the reader.<BR/><BR/>The scientific method can at least allow the benefit of truth to a rhetorical argument, but it is a double-edged sword. If the evidence proves contrary to the argument you are attempting, you are faced with an unfortunate decision. You can either concede the argument (the rational, if sadly rare option), or you can do what everyone else does, and continue to rely upon rhetoric (and dishonesty) alone.<BR/><BR/>The scientific method is powerful and utterly logical. However, we must be prepared to accept the consequences of the inquiry, whatever the facts truly are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12251252.post-1137480705301952412006-01-17T00:51:00.000-06:002006-01-17T00:51:00.000-06:00I find there is something of an important problem ...I find there is something of an important problem lying right here:<BR/><BR/><I>Writing persuasive documents</I> is considered a cornerstone, yet so is <I>the scientific method.</I><BR/><BR/>The process of science is all about avoiding the messiness of rhetorical persuasion, at least in theory. If you're going to apply scientific method with rigor, you have to (as a consequence) give up a variety of strong rhetorical methods.<BR/><BR/>Rhetoric and the scientific method make very poor partners.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com