Robert Scott's Epistemic Rhetoric

In his article on an epistemic form of rhetoric, Robert Scott looks at two different forms of argumentation:  analytical and substantial arguments.  He argues that analytic arguments rely on truth that is prior and substantial- and such things lead to a shallow (or warped) form of rhetoric.  Scott points out that if truth is prior and absolute, then it need not be argued- only demonstrated.  Alternatively, Scott argues that a form of rhetoric one might fit into would be to accept all those who understand "truth" and to consider those who do not understand or accept one's version of "truth" as inferiors.  The rhetoric aimed at these people then, would be one that acted out of the dangerous stance of "certainty"- that "I" have the truth and "you" need to know it.  When I think of a role of rhetoric centered upon certainty and absolute truth, I think of religious fundamentalists, as one example.  A fundamentalist is someone who thinks that their religious beliefs embody "truth," someone who is "certain" of this- and to those who do not support or understand this "truth," the perspective is implicitly that those people are inferiors in relation to the truth.  Any rhetoric aimed at these "inferiors" would be concerned with enlightening them to the truth.

A better role for rhetoric is found once Scott rejects "prior and enabling truth as the epistemological basis for a rhetoric."  He eventually claims that truth is determined through processes of cooperative creative inquiry, rather than truth being determined in any "a priori" way.  When truth is relative to human contexts and interaction, rhetoric has a much larger role.  In fact, the epistemological role of rhetoric in this setting would be as the vessel for this cooperative creative inquiry.  In my mind, this fits well with the Sophist perspective, and with the way rhetoric emerged in the Greek political and judicial systems.

One quote in particular stood out to me, in emphasizing the contingency of truth and the idea that man cannot know truth apart from his experiences:

In human affairs, ours is a world of conflicting claims.  Not only may one person contradict another, but a single person may find himself called upon to believe or act when his knowledge gives rise to directives which are dissonant.

**Caution:  Spoilers below for anyone who has not seen the TV show "LOST."  I would not want to spoil the greatness that is/was LOST for anyone, so if you ever think you might watch that series, I would say stop reading right about... NOW!!

This quote highlights the contingency of truth and the very need for cooperative critical inquiry.  Scott gives several examples of how man may be conflicted in various situations.  The example I would like to look at further is a segment of my favorite television show ever:  Lost.  For some context, for the first 3 seasons the main character (Jack) has worked tirelessly to get himself and all of the other survivors of a plane crash off of the island they have been trapped on.  Jack went to great lengths to get them off of the island and find rescue, and at great costs.  Eventually, a few of them made it off of the island.

However, circumstances changed and thanks to a couple of conversations off the island, Jack realizes that he and the others who escaped needed to return to the island.  This video is after Jack has come to that realization.  If you saw him at any other time during the first 3 seasons, you would understand just how much "going back" to the island was against his nature.  However, through a little critical inquiry and the rhetoric of one of the other survivors- and due to changing circumstances- Jack had this to say:

*Side note:  the internal conflict Jack is feeling is a great example of what Scott is talking about when he says that truth is determined by our experiences, that it is contingent, and that our world is a world of "conflicting claims."  These conflicting claims make great drama, and this made for one of the best conclusions to a tv episode/season that I have ever seen.  (The context was relevant, too but I don't have time to explain all of that.)

Avatar and Epistemic Rhetoric

In his essay, “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic”, Robert Scott criticizes Toulmin’s two types of arguments - analytic and substantial -  for being “tenseless”, content-empty, and not coinciding with the truth (12). While Scott agrees with Toulmin’s a posteriori approach to epistemology, he feels that rhetoric should accomplish more: it should move past what is certain, and create truth on a situational basis, rather than “knowing” and then “acting”. Scott then turns to Ehninger and Brockriede’s concept of cooperative critical inquiry, which is useful in supporting and assessing knowledge claims. Scott holds the position that doing-is-knowing, and asserts “that truth is not prior and immutable but is contingent”; “not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself” (13,17). The uncertainty of the world makes “knowing” impossible unless one acts with epistemic rhetoric, and in the “best possible” way that “maximizes the potential good”(17).  

Scott’s view of epistemic rhetoric can be applied to the movie Avatar. A little background about the movie: A paraplegic former marine named Jake Sully is sent by the RDA Corporation to the planet Pandora in the hybrid form of a Na’vi/human. The goal of the RDA is to extract a large amount of the valuable mineral, Unobtanium, located underneath the Hometree of the Na’vi people. He is assigned to gather information about the species and to eventually convince them to leave the Hometree so that the RDA can excavate it. In return for intel, Jake will be rewarded with the ability to walk again. Below is a segment from the script which illustrates Scott’s assertion that “acting”  like a Na’vi equates to “knowing” them.

  

SELFRIDGE

Look, you're supposed to be winning the

hearts and minds of the natives. Isn't

that the whole point of your little

puppet show? If you look like them, if

you talk like them, they'll trust you?

JAKE

How do we contact them?

GRACE

We don't. They contact us. If they see

us taking our samples, treating the

forest with respect --

(pointedly to Jake)

Not trampling everything in sight --

they may reach out to us.

Since no “prior truth” is available to the RDA Corporation about how to negotiate with the Na’vi people, Jake must “create truth” in gaining the trust and respect of the clan. Jake is not given a playbook or a case-by-case set of instructions for living among the Na’vi people. The only direct advice the RDA supplies him with is to “treat the forest with respect”. He has no choice but to live in a new world of uncertainty, where acting like a Na’vi can only come from learning the truth about them in daily life. Jake is forced to abandon living as a human would, and to live like a Na’vi. He has no “absolute” experiences to rely upon, therefore, his knowledge from living on the planet of Pandora is dictated by how he “acts”.

Periodically, Jake would keep his superiors updated via a video-log about his interactions and experiences with the Na’vi.  It is a limited form of collaborative critical inquiry, in which Jake reports the “truth” about the Na’vi as he sees it. Over the three months of his assignment, however, Jake checks in with the RDA less frequently. He keeps the truth of his situation to himself, so that he can remain on Pandora. Jake is caught in a “conflict of duty” as result of his love for the Na’vi people, particularly Neytiri, the princess of the clan. His duty to as a soldier for the RDA corporation is compromised by his desire to protect the Na’vi. The segment below portrays Jake’s “world of conflicting claims”.

JAKE

But if I tell [Colonel] Quaritch the truth, he

yanks me out -- I never see her  [Neytiri] again.

And if I tell her the truth, the clan

throws me out -- that's if they don't cut

my heart out and show it to me.

By not communicating with the outside world as he should, Jake feels more obligated to protect the home of the clan, rather than persuade them to re-locate. Jake realizes that he can never possibly convey the circumstances of living among the Na’vi people. The truth, in Jake’s case, cannot be “dual”. He can serve either the interests of the Corporation or the Na’vi, not both. By suppressing the collaborative critical inquiry that his superiors requested of him, Jake has transformed the truth of his situation. The result is horrific for Jake and the Na’vi: Colonel Selfridge of the RDA Corporation bulldozes and destroys the Hometree.

Object Lesson II: Meaning, Time, and Hindsight

Robert Scott sets out to challenge the notion of truth as “prior and immutable,” qualities which have traditionally afforded humans a foundation upon which to build elaborate arguments about complex issues. This popular metaphor leads one to consider that an unstable “foundation” results in a “shaky” argument, seeming to necessitate an unmoving truth; such understandings are responsible for the demonization of rhetoric throughout human history. Thinkers as far back as Aristotle have noted that, if men make rational decisions based on universal truths, the art of rhetoric can only be “superfluous.” Ultimately, however, “men are not as they ought to be,” and this simple observation becomes the basis for Scott’s notion of rhetoric as epistemic.

Time is the key dimension for truth-making—it plays a crucial role in what Scott terms “cooperative critical inquiry.” He alludes to Toulmin’s “type shift” for emphasizing that all substantial arguments involve a “shift in time.” Only through this shift in time is one able to achieve any degree of certainty, and this sort of certainty only ever manifests after the fact. At this point, we turn to South Park:

Here, the character of Captain Hindsight is used to illustrate a point which John Dewey expresses elegantly: “Certainly nothing can justify or condemn means except results.” The difficulty which arises in human decision making comes from the seemingly irreconcilable dual-nature of truth, which Scott describes as “the demands of the precepts one adheres to and the demands of the circumstances in which one must act.” Since truth does not exist a priori, we are forced to constantly assemble it as our circumstances require; those who stubbornly adhere to immutable truths are able to propagate the illusion that facts can and should be known, such individuals strongly resembling the “superior” men who must lead the “inferior” ones described in the essay. When people use the phrase “hindsight is 20/20,” they are recognizing that, after an event, truths appear to be self-evident. The above clip satirizes those who would ascribe to “inevitable” or “certain” truths; it reveals the absurdity of attempting to apply situational truths as general principles. The dimension of time is integral to all human understanding; as put by Pierre Thevenaz, “Man acts and speaks before he knows. Or better, it is by acting and in action that he is enabled to know.”

We create truth “moment by moment” through our use of language to describe our experiences. In this way rhetoric is a sort of mechanism through which meanings come to be. Since a lone individual’s experiences are incapable of providing a complete understanding of the world, to me, it suggests that decisions which emerge through cooperative critical inquiry have the greatest potential for creating comprehensive truths that will be useful for society.

-Sam Fuller

Barry Brummett - "Postmodern Rhetoric"

Brummett makes several interesting statements in this essay regarding truth and how people interpret it.  The fact that truth can be relative based on one's own interests and perspective can make significant political issues very challenging.  One quote in particular made me think of the difficulty the European Union is experiencing with the Euro.

"The feeling that contradictory truths exist, or that we can challenge our social groups, is accounted for by this notion of truth.  Conflicting truths arise when two or more validating contexts have opposed meanings.  For example, people may be torn between the desire to further the common welfare and the desire to protect self-interests (Brummett 35)."

The European Union is having to deal with trying to balance the interests of individual nations with the idea of maintaining a common currency to help smaller European nations with transaction costs.  The idea of the Euro began in an attempt to make trade easier between European countries that used each others exports.  The Euro was meant to stabilize the markets of all the nations involved while providing a stable economy that would allow neighboring countries to loan money to each other as they needed it.  It was originally a cyclical process and countries were able to pay each other back with relative ease.  Within the last several years, the economies of many European countries have began to separate drastically, leaving the burden with the larger countries.  The exports of Greece, Italy, and France have all declined drastically while Switzerland and Germany have actually had to put a cap on the appreciation of their exports so that other countries can afford their products.  This has created a sharp divide in the European Union, with truth becoming relative based on economic situations (http://moneyland.time.com/2011/09/12/its-time-to-admit-the-euro-has-failed/).

The stronger countries are tired of continuously bailing out the smaller ones.  To put it into perspective, Germany has loaned Greece the equivalent of the $700 billion plan that President Bush proposed here in the United States.  As certain economies continue to fall, values cannot be accurately placed on the assets that companies have.  This makes companies like AIG and Accenture nearly bankrupt because they cannot use their assets to offset their debt (http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/what-is-an-economic-bail-out-and-what-does-it-mean/.)  The truth as it would appear to Greece is completely different than the perspective of Germany, The Netherlands, or Switzerland.

Its also interesting to view this financial crisis from an idealist perspective.  Richard Weaver would argue that the ideal would set the standard of the ultimate good, and it would be a fixed standard that decisions could be measured against.  This is difficult, if not impossible, to apply to these circumstances.  At what point does the truth shift from helping other countries to the idea of self preservation?  The stronger countries have been helping the weaker ones for several years now, with no indication that they will regain stability.  At what point does one country's perceived truth become more significant than the rest?  The economies of European countries can certainly be measured, providing data that can produce concrete arguments from both sides.

This video shows arguments from both sides and demonstrates the relative truths that exist between countries.  A capitalist economy is based on credit and debt, and the rotation of that exchange is what holds a country together.  The public debt ratio is becoming too much in certain countries while the more stable ones cannot continue to support them.  I honestly have no idea what the solution is, but I think this is a perfect example of the struggle between contradictory truths. 

My Inner Nerd Shines Through...with a Buffy Reference

While watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1, episode 8 to be exact) entitled "I, Robot...You, Jane", a particular scene caught my eye. I have searched for a way to play it here but I have settled on giving you a section of the transcript instead. To set it up a little, the episode follows the story of Buffy and her friends as they try to destroy a demon who has taken over their school's computers. Buffy's normal sage, Giles, is out of his element as he is by trade a librarian. He enlists the help of the school's computer science teacher Ms. Calendar (a self proclaimed techno-pagan - hah!). The following dialogue occurs between Giles and Ms. Calendar in the last five minutes of the episode, after all returns to right with the world for the conclusion of the episode.

[Cut to the school the next day. Cut to the computer lab. Ms. Calendar is standing at her desk and typing on her PC. Giles comes in, clears his throat and knocks on the open door. She turns to see who's there.]

Ms. Calendar:  (smiles) Well, look who's here! Welcome to my world. (with a bit of an attitude) You scared?

Giles:  I'm remaining calm, thank you. Uh, I just wanted to, uh, return this. (holds up a small curly earring) I found it among the new books, and naturally I thought of you.

Ms. Calendar:  Cool. Thanks. (takes it)

Giles:  Uh, well, I'll, I'll see you anon. (begins to go)

Ms. Calendar:  Can't get outta here fast enough, can you?

Giles:  (comes back in) Truthfully, I'm even less anxious to be around computers than I used to be.

Ms. Calendar:  Well, it was your book that started all the trouble, not a computer.

Giles is at a loss.

Ms. Calendar:  Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?

Giles:  The smell.

Ms. Calendar:  Computer's don't smell, Rupert.

Giles:  I know! Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences...long forgotten. Books smell. Musty and, and, and, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... it has no, no texture, no, no context. It's, it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um... smelly.

Ms. Calendar:  Well! You really are an old-fashioned boy, aren't you?

The highlighted portion is what made me sit up and take notice. It took me back to the first Barry Brummet article, Some Implication of 'Process' or 'Intersubjectivity'. In the first section of the article, Brummet discusses the mechanistic world view where "what at a moment appeared to be soul, ideas, or will would in time be found to be material" (p. 22). Giles seems to have a fairly mechanistic view of the world. All knowledge can be contained in books and transmitted that way. There is something lacking in cyberspace for him. (I'm going to make the jump here from (when Giles says) "computer" to "internet".)

The context of everything on the internet changes from computer to computer, browser to browser. When coding webpages in HTML you must account for these differences. You pick a font for your information to be displayed in, however not all browsers or computers may support that font. You add in secondary and tertiary fonts in case the one you picked is not supported. On top of that, in browsers like Google Chrome you can also specify a "theme" where it will color scheme-ify all your tabs and backgrounds. Information gained from a computer has many contexts, none of them specified by the author/information giver.

With a book, the author can put in any necessary frills or embellishments and in general, can control what the final product will look like. Or at the very least, all books look similar. Similar typefaces and similar materials make all books look the same. There is nothing that the author didn't write inside the book. There are no outside sources influencing your reading at the same time as you are reading the original text. With the internet, you could be reading the same text and looking at a critique of the text or the author in the next tab or window (not to mention your own personal context that is now framing your reading). It completely changes the way you are reading the original text.

Rhetoric, Truth & Ethics and a Journalist’s Responsibilities

The reading that stood out most to me this week was Robert Scott’s "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic." In it, Scott takes a look at truth in terms of certainty and how cooperative critical inquiry contributes to its creation.

Scott attempts to define ‘truth’ in terms of certainty and discusses two different types of argument – analytical and substantial. He uses the concept of argumentative justification in rhetoric as an alternative to analytic logic. He points out that one can rarely, if ever, be certain and thus must act with responsibility. Scott defines rhetoric in terms of tolerance, will, and responsibility. Rhetoric is not a matter of giving effectiveness to truth but creating truth (Scott 13). He sees that knowledge (truth) does not exist prior to action, but is constructed through action. Scott argues that cooperative critical inquiry is what creates truth. He states explicitly “truth can only arise from cooperative critical inquiry” (14). It is our actions that create truth, because for man “by acting and in action that he is enabled to know” (15). Because one cannot be certain, he must do his best in each situation. Scott states “man cannot be certain but must act in the face of uncertainty to create situational truth” (16). If he does not do his best, it is ethically wrong. “Inaction, failure to take on the burden of participating in the development of contingent truth, ought be considered ethical failure” (16). Therefore, man’s actions concerning the creation of truth tie directly into ethics. “To act with intentions for good consequences, but to accept the responsibilities for all the consequences in so far as they can be know is part of what being ethical must mean” (17). Scott points out that truth must be seen as dual by saying that one must consider truth “not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). We not only must learn to cope with our creation of truth, but do out best to make the right efforts in reaction to that truth in each situation for ethical purposes. Overall, Scott argues that rhetoric, in the absence of certainty, is a way of knowing and can help us cope with this. Therefore, rhetoric is epistemic.

How Scott’s article really connected to me was through my background in journalism. A lot of professions – doctors, bankers, lawyers, etc. – set high standards for their behaviors in order to keep their credentials. Journalists do too. The truth, especially in terms of ethics, is very important to journalists. Journalism’s core business is integrity. As a journalist’s first obligation is to the truth, in essence journalism is a discipline of verification. However, the news changes everyday and every situation is different. Therefore truth in each different case is always changing and thus tough to find. We can’t really be certain of the truth but must attempt to seek it out and do our best to act upon it by reporting it. Journalists have to appraise each situation. They must know all the facts from a variety of sources, so they need to do a lot of research. I connected this to what Scott said about cooperative critical inquiry. Also, it connects to what he says about man’s actions and the creation of truth. As journalists it is kind of up to us to create truth. While we don’t outright create it, we still make choices that frame the news and therefore help to construct the public’s conception of truth and reality.

As far as how finding/creating the truth ties into journalistic ethics, it is both normal and essential for journalists to have a code of ethics, or standards and values that guide their professional conduct. The overall goal is to communicate the truth objectively to the people, but it isn’t always easy to figure out what the truth is. Journalists constantly have to make judgments in every situation. While there is no legally enforced guideline to apply to these situations, oftentimes people adopt different codes or guidelines. Doing the right thing isn’t always as easy as it seems, and these can help. Doing what’s safe, legal, or easiest isn’t necessarily the same as doing what’s right. Withholding information or publishing anything with a hidden agenda is of course unethical, whether intentional or not. But some cases are harder to determine.

For this reason, we have the codes. For example, one of the most widely followed codes here in the U.S. is the Code of Ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists. It states that the four main duties of the journalist are to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. By seeking truth and reporting it, they should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information. By minimizing harm, they should treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect. By acting independently, journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know. And finally, journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other. Overall, by assuming that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy, the code portrays the duty of the journalist as furthering this by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

I felt like the application of journalistic ethics in seeking the truth really applied to Scott’s discussion of how one must strive to make the right choice in the face of uncertainty to best react to that created truth. Like Scott’s point that truth arises through cooperative critical inquiry, journalists must work together to seek out the truth. We can never be certain of what is the ‘truth’ but can do our best in each situation with the help of guidelines. We have an obligation to the public to provide the truth, or our best version of it, and failing to do so is a failure in ethics.

 Here is the link to the SPJ’s Code of Ethics:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Liar Liar and Perceptions of Truth

Our readings this week discussed a lot about perceptions of truth and the ability relationships and rhetoric to change these perceptions. For purposes of argument, I'm going to focus on the Brummett article.

One of Brummett's arguments against mechanism is the idea that observations can be done without bias. He argues that in science, laws of nature are "ways of representing what is observed and are not nature itself." He also argues that observation cannot done be done without bias. And because of this, different scientists may observe the same event in nature but may end up with results.

This is true in everyday life. I want to direct you to the Jim Carrey movie, Liar Liar. http://youtu.be/RDN7IP31Bu4 Follow the link and skip ahead to 7:18. In the movie, Jim Carrey's character is being compelled by a birthday wish made by his son that he cannot tell a lie. As his secretary is about to leave him because of some hurtful truths he told, she asks him about a particular case.

Both Greta and Mr. Reed (Jim Carrey) agree that justice was not served in this case. But it becomes clear Mr. Reed's idea of justice is not the same as Greta's. While Reed is focused on winning cases at the highest amount, Greta is concerned with a much more moral aspect. In this situation, both observed justice wasn't served and yet, because of their different biases, they were in favor of ruling for different parties.

It's interesting here to not that just because Reed can't tell a lie, he is not compelled to tell the "ultimate truth." He still says justice wasn't served and that the "bad guy" should have won more money. Reed speaks what he considers to be true, even if most of us would consider his form of truth to be wrong.

Brummett also argues that reality is meaning that is discovered through communication and that through this communication our perceptions of reality can change. In Liar Liar, when Reed discovers it's his son's birthday wish that has caused him to be unable to lie, he tries to get Max to unwish it. http://www.wingclips.com/movie-clips/liar-liar/grown-ups-lie?play=1 He tries convincing his son that adults have to lie, and that he needs to be able to lie in order to keep his job. Max, however, is unable to undo the wish. Reed presses again that everyone lies, even his mom. Max says, "But you are the only one who makes me feel bad."

It is through this communication that some meaning is discovered for Reed and his reality starts to change. He later admits to his ex that he's a bad father for not being there for Max when he should, something that he hadn't realized before. Even though the truth of him being a bad father may have existed since the beginning of the film, it didn't come into reality for Reed until his conversation with Max.

A large portion of Brummett's article is focused on the argument that it is rhetoric that changes realities and lets us discover different truths. Originally, I was going to argue that situations, where only observations are made, can also change realities. For example, at the end of Liar Liar, Reed wins the court case by proving Mrs. Cole was underage when she got married. He even goes so far to say "and the truth will set you free!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQP0Y2T2OQ

At first, Reed seems pleased at having won. But when Mrs. Cole decides to fight for sole custody of her children because of the money, Reed begins to question himself. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xky4er_custody-over-the-kids_shortfilms

As he watches Mrs. Cole drag the children away from their father, Reed approaches the judge to suggest that the ruling was wrong. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xky4e2_being-put-in-jail_shortfilms He goes so far as to state, "just because you bought it, doesn't mean I'm right." This set another interesting perspective on "ultimate truth." According to law, the court had to rule in Mrs. Cole's favor, but Reed is suggesting another decision could have came about.

The argument I was going to put forward is that Reed's change of heart does not occur through a conversation but through observation of Mr. and Mrs. Cole's interaction with their children. However, upon further thought, I think it can be argued had Reed viewed this scene at the beginning of the movie, he would not have reacted as strongly to it.

It is his conversations with Max and Greta that has changed his reality. He is realizing how much he cares for his son, how little he's been there for him, and his perception of right and wrong is becoming more "noble." It is these conversations that changed Reed's reality that in turn changed his observation bias. He is no longer concerned about winning the case or making partner. He wants to do what is right. And it is rhetoric that has changed that.

11.1.11 Object Lesson

A friend of mine missed several Dexter episodes, and since I'd saved them after DVRing them I invited her over to catch up before watching the new episode last night. While watching "A Horse of a Different Color," the 4th episode of the current season 6, I started to realize how it had some parallels to Brummett's "Postmodern Rhetoric." Several characters in this season of Dexter help illustrate various examples from mechanism to intersubjectivity.

In case you don't watch Dexter, he's a serial killer who kills murderers. He has a code to his kills. Dexter ensures that those he kills are in fact guilty of killing. This season he's started to question what he believes in and whether that includes a higher being. He has a young son, Harrison, and that also factors into his questions. He wants Harrison to have something to believe in so that he doesn't end up like Dexter. This season Dexter has met Brother Sam, an ex-convict turned minister. Conversations with Sam have made Dexter question and think about God's existence. This truly is shown when Harrison's appendix ruptures, and he is rushed into surgery. Dexter finds himself bargaining with God, telling him he's willing to do whatever as long as Harrison is okay. To add further intrigue to the religious theme of the season, the killers Dexter is tracking down are reenacting scenes from the book of Revelation with their victims' bodies. Here's a clip that looks into what's happening:

So let's start examining Professor Gellar. He's the killer who's behind the book of Revelation killings. He epitomizes a religious fanatic. Travis, shown in the clip, is in a way his apprentice. I found Gellar to be an example of mechanism. I'm still not sure where to place Travis in the scheme of Brummet's article; I think the later episodes in the season may be required before that decision can be made. Professor Gellar demonstrates belief in both tenets of Newtonian mechanics that Brummet provides: "1) reality is objective, that is to say it exists absolutely and apart from mind, the observer's intentions, or tools of observation, and 2) this objective reality is mechanical, causal, and necessary" (22). Gellar uses God to explain why people don't "apprehend objective reality directly in everyday experience" (22). To Gellar, God is like the gap between the knower and the known.

Professor Gellar also demonstrates the idealistic truth. As Brummet notes, "Having found the truth, the idealist cannot claim that truth as his/hers and cannot be held accountable for the consequences of the actualization of truth" (39). Professor Gellar doesn't believe he'll be held accountable because he believes that he is enacting God's will. When Travis is faced with a decision, one of which Professor Gellar disapproves, Professor Gellar chides him saying, "As long as you're willing to accept the consequences God gives you" ("A Horse of a Different Color"). In regard to ethics, Gellar believes that God will punish those who don't follow his will. As such the consequences of idealist truth "are charged to the account of Truth, not to the rhetor who is only an agency. This creates for the rhetor a waiver of responsibility at best. At worst...it provides the kind of 'rationalization' that fanatics feed on'" (Brummet 39). Professor Gellar is indeed in the at worst category of the fanatic.

Meanwhile I see Dexter as an example of the process of intersubjectivity. In a conversation with Brother Sam, Dexter tells him "You put your faith in God. I put mine in science." Sam responds saying, "You might say I can't prove that God exists. You can't prove he doesn't" ("A Horse of a Different Color"). This seems to show that "people get meaning from communication: 'Therefore meaning is not discovered in situations, but created by the rhetors" (Brummet 29). Dexter is taking meaning from this. He's starting to question what he believes in. His conversations with Sam are creating the meaning of his reality. In a way Sam is the rhetor who is helping Dexter create that meaning. "The point here is that wherever meanings are shared they are shared only because discourse has the power to induce people to participate in that shared reality. That same power may be used to change the reality" (31). Dexter has entered into that discourse because Sam has addressed questions to which Dexter is uncertain of the answer. The season has yet to determine Dexter's reality, but he seems open to changing his beliefs. Writer Scott Buck ends the above clip alluding to Dexter's spiritual journey, also demonstrating that Dexter is open to changing his truths of experience.

Whereas Gellar is an example of truth as it relates to the idealist, Dexter contrasts as an example of truth in intersubjectivity. "Here the rhetor still has the responsibility to discover his/her truth... But the rhetor also has the responsibility to recognize that this truth is his/her responsibility, and its actualization and consequences are his/her responsibility, for he/she is part of the context that determines in part how others will view reality" (39). Unlike Gellar, Dexter is concerned with his code, in a way his truth, a context of how he views reality. His responsibility is to make sure that people he kills are guilty of murder. Dexter believes the consequences are his responsibility. Unlike Gellar, Dexter won't use something else as an excuse.

Reducing Toulmin

At one point in the book, Toulmin claims that analytic arguments are the "only sort of arguments which will answer the demands of certainty made in epistemological speculation." Scott argues, however, that every argument/syllogism involves a shift in time and, in many cases, a shift in place. Humans may attempt to create a set of universal values, in doing so they will "enter into the contingencies of time and place and will not give rise to products which are certain." Instead, truth must be constructed through cooperative critical inquiry, a term/idea that can be inferred from Toulmin, although Scott argues that Toulmin doesn't seem to grasp the implications of this fully.

Scott's discussion of Ehninger and Brockriede's book Decision by Debate briefly mentions that the book adapts Toulmin's form of argumentation into a neat and orderly speech model and ignores the philosophical issues Toulmin attached to that form. As I HS speech teacher I taught from a text that used this model in a similar way. The text broke down Toulmin into an easily remembered flowchart, like this one: Toulmin's Model of Argumentation. In fact, several other concepts (such as audience analysis, rhetorical constraints, ethos) were treated this same way--stripped of any context and repackaged into a set of objective terms. Unfortunately, many HS textbooks portray public speaking (and writing, and literature, and . . .) similarly.

On one hand, I can understand the desire to make concepts easily digestible for the students. However, by basing HS textbooks on this skeletal framework of disembodied concepts, we do students a great disservice. (And this isn't even taking into account the whole of our broken education system.) A few reasons for this trend immediately come to mind, although I recognize that these ideas in no way address the entirety of the issue nor do I presume they are original to me.

The first reason that comes to mind is a lack of faith in our students. Perhaps we feel that presenting HS students with concepts that are not conflicting or not clearly defined will confuse them. When eventually presented with sticky concepts, many students do feel overwhelmed, simply because their prior education excluded them from negotiating these types of issues. A second reason is fear--educators/administrations fear that by opening up the classroom to this cooperative critical inquiry we will lose control of the classroom. The roles of "teacher" and "student" may even (gasp!) be threatened. The final reason is a desire to absolve ourselves of ethical responsibility. In teaching an "objectively true" set of prescribed academic standards, we say, "It is not I who am responsible."

Jacques Derrida - "Structure, Sign, Play in the Discourses of the Human Sciences."

This reading was particularly interesting to me.  Derrida makes some very insightful remarks regarding a structure and the purpose its center serves.  There are many terms that he uses that can be applied perfectly to the way a capitalist economy is set up, and this concept really relates to the way our society operates in general.  The idea of the center of a structure allowing "play" and existing "within" and "outside" of it is a great way to approach the fall of several large companies within the past decade.  The most significant structural failure in our area is far and away the government forced sale of Wachovia.  

As of 2009, Wachovia was the fourth largest financial institution in North America (www.annualreports.com).  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will insure up to $100,000 in any privately owned fund by a U.S. citizen (www.fdic.gov).  As the credit crisis became worse, people began to pull out money that was above this threshold and moved it into different accounts with longer term, fixed interest rates.  Banks usually provide small loans to each other, which is why multiple bank headquarters are located in one city (New York, San Francisco, Charlotte).  Wachovia lost almost a full percent of its available cash on one day, which will cripple nearly any bank in a capitalist economy.  In this example, a center existed "within the structure and outside it." Bob Steel, then CEO of Wachovia, spent so much time claiming that the company would remain independent that he failed to realize the structure around him was falling.  The center existing outside of the structure, the FDIC, mandated the liquidation of $12 billion in stock incentives to CitiGroup in exchange for a loan to hopefully bail the company out.  As the company continued to lose money, the FDIC, and ultimately everyone reading this, are still paying for it.

After the dollar per share stock price had fallen low enough that shareholders could not receive dividends, the FDIC forced the sale of Wachovia to Wells Fargo.  The center outside of the structure replaced the one within it to control the "free play" that was happening.  Had Steel been able to adjust the mutual fund and securities divisions accordingly before people pulled cash directly out of their accounts, the company may have survived.  Derrida's idea that there is no fixed center certainly applies here.  Nearly anything in this world is possible if a company with $3 trillion in assets can fail in less than a year.  

I think that it is interesting to relate Derrida's argument to the way our economy operates.  Companies experience sharp rises and falls, similar to the idea that there is no absolute truth.  Derrida's idea of "decentering" may be beneficial to many companies.  Spreading the decisions and ideas out to more than just a few select people could help companies in similar situations to Wachovia.  The center, Bob Steel, became so removed from the actual structure that he didn't understand the rupture that was occurring inside.  Several entry level financial advisers predicted what the center was not able to (www.bestcashcow.com), and the structure required a new center because of it.