A few more thoughts on different mechanisms for persuasion:
Aristotle's three branches of rhetoric plus a fourth, new branch,
match David Brin's four "accountability arenas":
judicial oratory -- courts
deliberative -- democracy
epideictic -- markets (the confusing one)
determinative -- science (the new one)
http://rhetoric.byu.edu/Canons/Invention/TOPICS%20OF%20INVENTION/TOPICS.HTM
http://www.davidbrin.com/disputationarticle1.html
The first is straightforward: for millenia, courts have provided jobs
for lawyers. The more successful are better at persuading.
The second is only slightly less straightforward. Legislatures and
citizens should deliberate. Rhetoric is about persuading people one
way or the other.
The third branch is puzzling, at least initially: according to
Aristotle, the epideictic branch of oratory is for "ceremonial" or
"demonstrative" occasions, for praise and condemnation. Indeed, an
anthropologist will think of rituals as a mechanism whereby those in
power maintain power, such as contemporary award ceremonies, in which
those who support the system receive appreciation.
But also, think about the sales of goods that are nearly the same
price. The price criterion is not large enough to separate a purchase
from passing by. Instead, your choice as a buyer depends on which
product you think is better. It is the job of a salesperson to
convince you of the virtue of his or her product and the badness of
competitors'.
The anthropoligists' notion is probably closer to what Aristotle
considered, but a market with advertising also presents claims of the
noble and virtuous versus the ignoble and base. "My glass of lemonade
will quench your thirst and improve your health, too!"
The fourth branch had not been articulated in Aristotle's day. I call
it the `determinative branch of oratory'. It is a way to persuade
someone that one judgement is more suggestive than another. (Some may
be open minded; modern physicists often are. Some people have virtue.
But a society cannot count on that.)
The advantage of science as a method of persuasion is that it is
fairly robust. (Here, I am speaking `ultimately', not `typically'.)
If you have a good reputation, many will simply accept your assertion.
And most of the time, you will do typical work. However, and this is
where science as a method of persuasion become significant, when
people do not wish to depend on others, when they distrust
authorities, then they must either follow your reasoning, or duplicate
your observation, or repeat your experiment. (The `they' may be one
of your enemy's students. Some are open minded; but not everyone. An
enemy may not be.)
Each of these three methods -- another following your reasoning,
duplicating your observation, or repeating your experiment --
persuades because the other does the job, not you. The rhetoric
(which some might call an `anti-rhetoric') does not depend on you.
Each different branches of rhetoric has different rules.
Thus, in scientific endeavors it is a moral failing to mispresent
another's work. The goal is to show someone's error to others, not to
fool them. In the other three branches, the traditional Aristotlian
branches, the definition of success is different.
In a court, the goal is to decide whether an accused should be
imprisoned or executed. For example, a defense lawyer will try to
persuade a judge and jury, those who make the judgement, that the
accused did not commit the murder; or that if he did, that he was
justified (perhaps the victim acted threatening) so the killing was
not murder; or that the court lacks jurisdiction (perhaps this is a
war zone); or that the law is wrong (accidents happen). Generally, a
lawyer will feel virtuous if he gets his client off, even if his
courtroom actions consist of theatrics that fool everyone. Certainly,
such a lawyer will be considered successful.
In a deliberation, the goal is to decide which course of action is
advantageous or disadvantageous to a society. In the old days, before
modern technologies increased resources dramatically, many figured
that advantages to them would be disadvantages to others.
In politics, when the consequences of defeat are considered fatal,
neither losers nor winners will be graceful. It is `not how you play
the game', it is whether you win.
Nowadays, only some actions are zero sum, such as whether we or they
should burn oil. Others actions, such as passing on software, are
positive sum and it requires policing to prevent people from being
helpful at little cost to themselves.
(As I write this, in a competitive, free market, presuming everyone
has economic freedom, a CD with 650 megabytes of software on it costs
about the same as a gallon -- four liters -- of low sulfur petroleum.)
In periods when all can gain, both winners and losers are more likely
to be graceful. After all, losers figure they will survive for
another day; and winners want peace and can afford to pay for it.
In an awards ceremoney, the goal is to appreciate those who receive
the rewards. (That is a traditional purpose of epideictic oratory.)
People are hurt when they are not appreciated or when they do not
appreciate being in the audience, although they are seldom hurt
directly.
At the same time, in a market, the goal is to sell or buy better
products and reject the worse.
(Incidentally, I tend to think and speak in terms of the fourth
branch, determinative. Rather than attempt to win over others using
any sort of means, I describe notions that I think are suggestive of
truth. This is often a mistake.)
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
