This week began our first week of college midterms...I’m honestly quite stressed about my midterms; hopefully they all turn out okay. We shall see...For this class I’m not too worried and I am interested to see what the topic for our midterm paper will be like. My goal is that regardless of the topic, I can combine my previous knowledge with new research instead of just relying on information I’ve learned and synthesized before. This will help challenge me and make sure I’m making the best use of my classes to really learn as much as possible.
I was really intrigued by the Shotter reading this week and thought it brought up some very interesting philosophical questions. There were a couple things I wanted to discuss but did not have time to in class:
0 Comments
"Instead of convincing arguments -- arguments which, if a first truth is admitted, will compel belief in their conclusions in all rational minds, generally and technically, that is, by calculation -- we are once again investigating the nature of persuasion, the different ways of achieving assent in different, particular audiences." (John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society," p. 167)
Shotter does not draw this distinction lightly or by accident. Certainly his argument in the chapter is that we need more persuasion and less striving to be convincing (in the special and technical ways he defines both of those terms), at least in public life. Do you agree? Will such a move, from convincing to persuading, help to address the general problem that Shotter diagnoses, in which not everyone is able to participate fully in the shaping of our social lives together? And where does this leave scientific facts? Convincing is an introspective and personal act in which you cause others to truly believe in an idea, concept, or truth. It is subjective and depends on the individual person and his or her own unique personal background and past experiences. Persuasion on the other hand is about fostering agreement between people. When people are persuaded, they are willing and able to act as a group in order to implement policies and actually take action. While convincing can be powerful for an individual, the practical limitations and benefits of convincing others are many, because the power of individuals pales in comparison to the combined powers of a group. Belief is a type of personal faith that assumes some things to be true. Belief is based off of certain established truths which are assumed to be naturally correct and upon which other beliefs are based off of. However, because belief is so individualized, there is not much room for discussion or true debate, nor is there a real independent metric to determine whether sometime is genuine or not. This leaves a lot of room for questions, such as what is “truth”? Who defines truth? How do we know that the initial truth is actually true? How do societal biases such as racism, sexism, classism, etc. affect ideas of truth, what is accepted as truth, and who is believed? The danger of beliefs is how quickly they can devolve into situations of “my facts” vs “your facts”. However, as we discussed in class, facts are either true or they’re not true, but there can’t exist multiple contradictory facts. That is the definition of a fact. However, how do we decide which facts to believe? Convincing is based off of the agreement of many, thus you need a lot of people to “be convinced”. Necessitating the involvement of multiple people provides more opportunities for others to provide their own opinion and shape what the consensus is and thus what becomes “accepted truth” in society. More people, assuming the people called upon are representative of the entire population (as opposed to all being from the same background and excluding people of different backgrounds) also helps limit the effects of bias in finding out the truth. As discussed on page 167, science begins in a version of my facts vs your facts, however through discussion this “confrontation” gives way to persuasion wherein some facts are accepted and some rejected, and those that are accepted must reach a certain level of consensus, of group persuasion, before they can be generally accepted as “truth”. This system of convincing creates a control valve in which a single person’s bias can’t single-handedly control everything, lending popular credibility. In a society which so values “universal truths”, persuasion is seen as the peak form of rhetoric, and creating a consensus is seen as validating truth. This credibility and “appearing to have all the virtues” makes it easier to then create and implement policy based on agreed-upon truths. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|