Eloquence and False Rhetoric

DavidR has posted of number of interesting questions on his blog related to Quintilian. In one of his first questions, he asks us to consider if a good speaker = a good person. Later in his post, he specifically asks about false rhetoric. I have comments on both of these issues.

I don't believe that good speaking or eloquent speaking means it is being generated by a good person. I should first acknowledge that I haven't really defined 'good' (but who really can), so what I am referring to is perhaps the good intentions of the speaker. What are the motivations for delivering the message. Again, I feel a bit judgmental in pretending to know what someone's intent actually is, so let me give an example.  Pseudoscience-a classic example of false rhetoric. In general, the message delivered by pseudoscientists is quite eloquent. Yet, it is not really 'scientific', so by virtue of the claims being labeled as scientific, the rhetoric of the message is falso. If the message is eloquent, is the messenger good? I prefer to think of this in the opposite way-if the message is poorly delivered, does that make the speaker bad? I think that the message and the speakers goodness can not be equated in such a way.

Justifying Artifacts for Rhetorical Analysis......

In preparing my term paper, I had to revisit a question that I have encountered previously in my studies in TCR. How to justify the number and types of artifacts that are used for rhetorical analysis? We have read important, singular works by rhetoricians, philosophers and other scholars. Great detail was devoted to analyzing what the author's intent may have been. But in transferring classical rhetorical strategies to contemporary examples, what constitutes a valid artifact? In my paper, for example, I explore the different 'arrangement' or scientific information presented to an audience of students (via a textbook) and an audience of the general public (via a TEDtalk). To justify my use of the specific artifacts, I quoted the number of views for the TEDtalk and a publisher's ranking of the textbook. Is this valid? What are your thoughts? What strategies have you all used to justify the importance or value in a particular artifact or set of artifacts?

Office/Work Space

If asked whether my workspace is more Platonic or Aristotelian, I would reply that it is perhaps a bit of both. I certainly identify with Aristotle and his no-nonsense, common sense approach to the world and our understanding of it. Additionally, in many ways, at least to me, much of what Plato says is hard to follow. But, both philosophers are after knowledge and truth, albeit, their own definition or understanding of what that truth might be. The lesson is that there is no one right answer. Because of my scientific background, this 'philosophy' of mine sometimes surprises people. Now, for some things, for which there are scientific facts, I DO believe that there is one answer. But our relative understanding about how that information fits with other scientific facts is really an interpretation. We are piecing together pieces of a puzzle. What I do in my office space is try to situate knowledge facts within evolving knowledge theories. As a science communicator, I attempt to do this for myself as well as for a variety of audiences. My space is then methodical and systematic (i.e.-Aristotelian) in design, but much more free spirited (i.e.-Platonic) in practice.

I describe myself as either a) a scientist in an artist's body; or b) an artist in a scientist's body. This is precisely how I ended up in the TCR program.