1 ARISTOTLE ON SCIENTIFIC VS NON-SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE Philosophical / Scientific Discourse Author > Discourse > Audience A scientist (e.g. biologist or sociologist). The emotions, appetites, moral character, personal identity, etc. of the scientist ought, ideally, to have no influence on his/her thesis. A scientific treatise, normally in written form (e.g biology or sociology). The socio-historical context in which the treatise was produced ought, ideally, to have no bearing on his/her argument (e.g. the fact that a scientist is Jamaican or that his experiment occurs in and/or his treatise is published there neither supports nor undermines his/her argument). Most often fellow scientists (e.g. biologists or sociologists). The scientist ought, ideally, not to tailor his/her argument to the emotions, appetites, moral character, personal identity, etc. of the members of a scientific audience but, rather, to appeal solely to their reason.
2 The Scientific Method: in science (scientia), the proper gathering of sound empirical evidence and the logic (logos) of the reasoning which infers conclusions from the data acquired are the only factors that matter. All reasoning takes the form, ideally, of syllogisms (syllogismos). In science, these are most often inductive in nature: universals are inferred from (or necessitated by, or derived from, or entailled by) the existence of particulars; to put this another way, generalised laws are inferred from limited samples of empirical data gathered. Technically, induction is defined as any process of reasoning in which the particular premises of an argument are believed to support a conclusion of a general nature but do not ensure it (e.g. the specific proposition 'this ice is cold' is used to infer that all ice is cold ). However, even in the best, or strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. For example, Premise: The sun has risen in the east every morning up until now. Conclusion: The sun will also rise in the east tomorrow. Reasoning can also be deductive: a conclusion concerning some particular fact (e.g. that a cuckoo is a bird) is inferred from previously known facts (or premises) of a more general nature (e.g. all birds have wings). Technically, deduction is defined as any process of reasoning in which an assertion concerning some particular fact (the conclusion) is necessitated by, or derived from, or entailled by previously known facts of a more general nature (the premises). In deduction, the conclusion is just as certain as the premises. For example, Premise 1: All humans are mortal. Premise 2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. In other words, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In short, the name of the game is facts although, in the case of induction, the facts may be highly but not definitively provable. Scientists believe that the so-called plain style, i.e. using language in literal or concrete ways that eschew figures of speech (except for purposes of clarification or illustration) avoids the embellishments that are common in literature but which may distort the presentation of the unvarnished truth. The goal of the syllogism is to demonstrate (or show) that the truth of the conclusion inferred possesses iron-clad certainty. The main criterion of judgment is veracity, i.e. whether or not the truth-claim made is factual. Field of Study: Logic is the name assigned today to the academic discipline which examines the validity of scientific reasoning. Aristotle s term for it was Analytic, arguably because it is the field of study which analyses truth-claims by breaking them into their component elements (see his Prior Analytic and Posterior Analytic). Non-Scientific (e.g. Political, Legal, Ceremonial, Etc.) Discourse Author > Discourse > Audience
3 A speaker or writer (e.g. a politician, a lawyer, someone celebrating or criticising a person, thing or event, etc.). Ethos: the speaker s / writer s emotions, appetites, personal identity, etc. inevitably shape his/her discourse, but it is in particular his/her moral character which lends credibility to or undermines his/her argument. A spoken or written text (e.g. a political speech, a legal plea, a eulogy, etc.); According to Aristotle, there are three branches of rhetorical discourse: the deliberative (legislative or political), the judicial (legal) and the epideictic (panegyric). Kairos: the socio-historical context (e.g. a particular place and time, a courtroom, a parliament, a birthday celebration, the year 1905, etc.) in which the text was produced inevitably determines the nature of the argument advanced. Though such discourses are aimed at particular targets (e.g. the members of an electorate, a jury, the relatives of the deceased, etc.), potentially anyone may be exposed to them. Pathos: their appetites, personal identity, moral character, etc. inevitably shape how members of the audience respond to the discourse in question, but it is their emotions in particular which are ripe for exploitation and which speakers/writers accordingly target.
4 The logic which informs the arguments advanced by a politician, lawyer, etc. normally consists in diluted or attenuated forms of deduction (what Aristotle terms the enthymeme, an abridged syllogism one stage of which is not explicitly stated but implied as a result of which part of the argument is missing because it is assumed) and induction (i.e. examples). Aristotle argues that political, legal and ceremonial discourse is distinguished from scientific discourse by the fact that the former places great emphasis on invention (heurisis [Greek]; inventio [Latin]), that is, the finding of those topics (topoi) or argumentative strategies appropriate to the situation at hand which are known to be effective and for which reason they have been handed down from generation to generation by tradition. He identifies two kinds in this regard, those special topics applicable only to a specific area of knowledge (e.g. the field of Physics) and those that are universally applicable regardless of the subject-matter in question (the so-called common places [koinoi topoi; loci communes]). Aristotle lists 28 valid commonplaces (e.g. to argue from authority) and 10 invalid ones (such as the use of indignant language). Aristotle believes that conclusions inferred from inherited opinions (premises) concerning aspects of the humanly-made social world (e.g. Money is the root of all evil ) rather than irrefutable natural facts (e.g. the sun is shining right now ) is necessarily open to dispute and leads to the establishment of at best probable truths. As a result, in the realm of human affairs, we have to be satisfied with possible or even probable truths rather than the absolute knowledge which is possible with regard to the natural world. In short, the name of the game here is not facts but, at best, interpretations. Arrangement (taxis; dispositio), i.e. the precise order in which points are made and the argument thereby developed, is another important factor contributing to the effectiveness of such discourse. The style (lexis; elocutio), which comprises both diction (the choice of particular words) and composition (their combination in specific sequences to form sentences and paragraphs), is another crucial component of arguments. The use in particular of figures of speech (metaphors, similes, etc.) has a huge impact on the conceptualisation of objects: e.g. comparing a woman to a witch most often has pejorative connotations, thereby shaping the audience s understanding of and reaction to the woman in question. Delivery (hypocrisis; pronuntiato/actio), which refers especially to voice (e.g. intonation) and gesture, and Memory (mneme; memoria), because speeches were traditionally often made without written or other aids, though this is not necessarily the case today, are extremely important in the case of arguments presented orally. The goal of all arguments is to persuade the audience to adopt the speaker s/writer s point of view and, where necessary, to act in accordance therewith. The main criterion of judgement is, accordingly, not veracity but effectiveness, that is, the success or failure of the attempt at persuasion. Fields of Study: the allied fields of study which examine the precise nature of the argumentation informing non-scientific discourses are Dialectic (dialetik ) and Rhetoric (rhetorik ) (Dialectic is specifically described by Aristotle as the counterpart [antistrophe] of Rhetoric). For Aristotle, Dialectic (see his work entitled Topics in particular) centres around the memorisation and use on appropriate occasions of certain tried and tested argumentative strategies or modes of persuasion found over many years to be effective. Rhetoric, according to Aristotle (see his Rhetoric), employs elements of Analytic (deduction in the form of the enthymeme and induction in the form of examples) as well as Dialectic (in the form of the topics).
5