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.)