Rhetoric, technical writing, and ethics

Many outside science and engineering, especially social scientists and “rhetoricians”, claim that rhetoric, “the art of persuasion”, is an important part of technical communication. This claim is either trivial or false. If “persuasion” simply means “effective communication”, then, of course, rhetoric is an important part of technical communication. But, if “persuasion” has anything like its traditional meaning (a specific art of winning conviction), rhetoric is not an important part of technical communication; indeed, its use in technical communication would be unethical. [By] an advocate is meant one whose business it is to smooth over real difficulties, and to persuade where he cannot convince. —Thomas Henry Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature ^{1 (p. 238)} As a profession, engineers frown on persuasiveness and find it suspect. —Dorothy A. Winsor, Writing Like an Engineer ^{2 (p. 12), A} Michael Davis’s research interests are in the areas of engineering ethics and the social contract. Recent published books include Thinking Like an Engineer, 1998, Oxford, and Ethics and the University, 1999, Routledge.     

Beyond postmodernism: Logic as rhetoric

The essay reviews the relationship between logic and rhetoric under the conditions of historicity and shows how (and why) the rules of logic may be construed as projected from the rhetorical practices of actual societies; why and how they are subject to revision; and why there is reason to think it could not be otherwise.     

先秦名家知识论研究

先秦名家通过辨析概念与事物的关系,揭示了一、概念是主观的;二、概念作为实在存在的条件;三、概念的真实意义在于运用;四、事物作为现象存在,其空间性、时间性是主观的;五、作为现象的事物是不确定的;六、现象是主体先验感知模式与外在尘缘的作为;七、现象是静止的;八、理性思维只能关注经验现象,对事物的真正无效。     

Inconsistency as an interactional problem: a lesson from political rhetoric

The classical theory of cognitive dissonance suggests that when two related cognitions are mutually inconsistent, one of them will change to restore consistency. However, Billig suggests that inconsistency is primarily an interactional problem between subjects and not a cognitive problem within a subject. In the current paper, we adopt Billig's rhetorical approach to inconsistency and study inconsistency as an interactional problem in the context of political rhetoric. More specifically, we use Action-Implicative Discourse Analysis to identify the discursive strategies the former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, used to cope with the inconsistency between his national ideology and his contradictory behavior during his short term in office.     

The epistemic implications of engineering rhetoric

The texts (and talk) of engineers take different forms. In this essay, I present and critique several texts written for different purposes and audiences but all intended to convey to the reader the technical details of whatever they are about—whether a textbook passage describing the fundamental behavior of an electrical component, a journal article about a mathematical technique intended for use in design optimization, a memo to co-workers within a firm about a heat transfer analysis of a remotely sited building, or a general introduction to the field of? ergonomics? My aim is to explore how the ways in which engineers describe and document their problems and projects frame what they accept, display and profess as useful knowledge. In this I am particularly interested in how engineers envision the ‘users’ of, or participants in, their productions. Like science, engineering texts are written as if they were timeless and untainted by socio-cultural features. However, a technical treatise is not devoid of metaphor or creative rendering of events; there is always a narrative within which worldly data and instrumental logic is embedded—but it is a story in which the passive voice prevails, history is irrelevant, and the human actor or agent is painted in quantitative parameters fitting the occasion. Whether this rhetoric can be sustained in the face of challenges to traditional ways of doing engineering is an open question.     

Reflection for learning in doctoral training: writing groups,academic writing proficiency and reflective practice

This literature review highlights the benefits of participating in a doctoral writing group, with specific emphasis on how these learning communities foster reflective practice skills development. In particular, this review proposes that the process of continuous peer feedback and discussion benefits students by helping them verbalise their internal reflective thinking, fostering reflective practice skills development through various authentic learning experiences. Consequently, this review highlights the importance of establishing and supporting doctoral writing groups to further develop doctoral students’ personal epistemology, growth and professional practice.     

Dialectic and rhetoric: Questions and answers in the Copernican Revolution

Dialectic and rhetoric: Questions and answers in the Copernican Revolution     

Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Twenty-First Century

The paper presents a historical overview of some characteristic differences between rhetoric and dialectic in the pre-modern tradition. In the light of this historical analysis, some current approaches to dialectic are characterized, with special attention to Ralph Johnson's concept of dialectical tier.     

The effects of creative,expressive, and reflective writing on career learning: An explorative study

This study investigates whether creative, expressive, and reflective writing contributes to the formation of a work-life narrative that offers both meaning and direction among students in higher education. The content of writing done by students who participated in a two-day writing course at the start (or in preparation) of their work placements and of a control group who did not take part in the course were compared. Writing samples were analysed using the Linguistic Index Word Count program (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) and an instrument based on Dialogical Self Theory (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). Results show writing promotes the development of career narratives.     

Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives

The thesis is defended that rhetoric is not, as is often said, a discipline which is hierarchically subordinate to dialectic. It is argued that the modalities of the links between rhetoric and dialectic must be seen in a somewhat different light: rhetoric and dialectic should be viewed as two complementary disciplines. On the basis of a historical survey of the views of various authors on the links between rhetoric and dialectic, it is concluded that efforts to establish clear boundaries or unequivocal conceptual or moral hierarchical relationships between the two disciplines have failed and that therefore, they must be conceived as being mutually dependent.     

Joining with all members of a family system: The rhetoric of antilogic in family therapy dialogue

Family therapists face a significant rhetorical challenge in working with families that disagree about the problematic life-situation which brought them to therapy. Therapists must find a way to join with disagreeing family members and then find a way to engage in a therapeutically useful conversation with them. Thus, they must deal resourcefully with contradictions. This article explores the ways that the Sophistic rhetorical concept of antilogic may be employed in helping therapists join and then engage in a therapeutically useful conversation with families who hold contradictory views concerning the problem that brought them to therapy.The author wishes to thank Ronald Chenail, PhD, Douglas Flemons, PhD, and Shelly Green, PhD, for their assistance in the development of this project.     

Structured writing about current stressors: The benefits of developing plans

To investigate the health outcomes of structured writing about everyday stressors, 64 undergraduates selected a stressful event with which they were currently dealing, and wrote about it at home on three occasions in 1 week. Two forms of writing were manipulated: expressive writing?–?exploring one's thoughts and feelings about the stressor; and planful writing?–?developing plans to deal with the problem. Appraisals of control and efficacy were investigated as mediators. Expressive writing yielded no health benefits and did not affect appraisals, but planful writing did. Whereas non-planners' levels of negative affect (NA) remained stable across writing days, planners initially experienced higher NA, but their NA decreased significantly across writing days. Planful writers, relative to non-planners, felt less control over their emotions and less confidence in resolving their problem, but it was non-planners who experienced an increase in stress-related symptoms following writing. Appraisals did not mediate the physical health outcomes.     

On the nature of nature: Experimental studies in the power of rhetoric

This paper reports two studies which investigate the effects of different definitions of the natural upon human preferences. The first study is designed to show that items are deemed more acceptable when defined as natural than when defined as non-natural. Subjects rated the acceptability of cannabis use after reading a text which either described it as a natural herb or as a drug. Acceptability ratings were significantly higher in the former condition. The second study examines how the way in which the category ‘nature’ is defined affects the acceptability of changes to the environment. Subjects watched videos which showed pictures of landscapes and then superimposed changes which consisted either of wild, non-human elements (W), human elements which fitted with the colour, texture and contours of the original (F), or human elements which were unfitting in terms of these criteria (U). It was predicted that, when we defined nature as virgin territory, W changes would be more acceptable than F or U changes. However when we defined nature as visual harmony, it was predicted that W and F changes would be equally acceptable but U changes would be less so. The results largely confirm these predictions. In discussion we argue for the importance of studying how processes of defining nature affect environment action, and for the use of experimental techniques to complement discursive investigations of such processes.     

书写对阅读的影响——来自传统书写与电脑打字的证据

书写和阅读是在文字的基础上发展起来的, 二者存在共享的神经网络。书写能影响阅读, 阅读不仅依靠视觉加工, 还依赖书写运动表征。不同书写方式对阅读的影响不同, 传统书写对阅读有促进作用, 电脑打字对阅读产生了一定的消极影响。对汉字来说, 传统书写能加强汉字的正字法表征, 促进汉字阅读; 电脑打字对汉字阅读的影响尚无一致结论。未来研究可以考察传统书写与电脑打字神经机制的差异, 以及电脑打字对汉字认知加工的影响及神经机制。     

Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics

Normative pragmatics can bridge the differences between dialectical and rhetorical theories in a way that saves the central insights of both. Normative pragmatics calls attention to how the manifest strategic design of a message produces interpretive effects and interactional consequences. Argumentative analysis of messages should begin with the manifest persuasive rationale they communicate. But not all persuasive inducements should be treated as arguments. Arguments express with a special pragmatic force propositions where those propositions stand in particular inferential relations to one another. Normative pragmatics provides a framework within which varieties of propositional inference and pragmatic force may be kept straight. Normative pragmatics conceptualizes argumentative effectiveness in a way that integrates notions of rhetorical strategy and rhetorical situation with dialectical norms and procedures for reasonable deliberation. Strategic effectiveness should be seen in terms of maximizing the chances that claims and arguments will be reasonably evaluated, whether or not they are accepted. Procedural rationality should be seen in terms of adjustment to the demands of concrete circumstances. Two types of adjustment are illustrated: rhetorical strategies for framing the conditions for dialectical deliberation and rhetorical strategies for making do with limitations to dialectical deliberation.     

Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric

Persuasive definitions – those that convey an attitude in the act of naming – are frequently employed in discourse and are a form of strategic maneuvering. The dynamics of persuasive definition are explored through brief case studies and an extended analysis of the use of the “war” metaphor in responding to terrorism after September 11, 2001. Examining persuasive definitions enables us to notice similarities and differences between strategic maneuvering in dialectical and in rhetorical argument, as well as differences between the role of strategic maneuvering in normatively ideal argument and in actually existing argument. This will avoid the double standard of comparing ideal dialectic with actual rhetoric, or vice versa. The results of the analysis suggest possibilities for a rapprochement between dialectical and rhetorical approaches to argumentation.     

Meeting in the House of Callias: Rhetoric and Dialectic

The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe and compare the original goals and perspectives of both rhetoric and dialectic in theory and in practice. Dialectic is the practice and theory of conversations; rhetoric that of speeches. For theory of dialectic, this paper will turn to Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations; for theory of rhetoric, to his Rhetoric. Thus it will appear that rhetoric and dialectic are pretty close. Yet, on the other hand, there is a long tradition of mutual antagonism. The paper tries to summarize the common features of, as well as the differences between, the two. To get a taste of both dialectic and rhetoric in practice the reader is invited to enter the House of Callias, as we know it from Plato's Protagoras. After this visit there remains no doubt that rhetoric and dialectic are intertwined on the level of practice. Moreover, we may look forward to their integration on the level of theory.     

Case method and casuistry: The problem of bias

Case methods of reasoning are persuasive, but we need to address problems of bias in order to use them to reach morally justifiable conclusions. A bias is an unwarranted inclination or a special perspective that disposes us to mistaken or one-sided judgments. The potential for bias arises at each stage of a case method of reasoning including in describing, framing, selecting and comparing of cases and paradigms. A problem of bias occurs because to identify the relevant features for such purposes, we must use general views about what is relevant; but some of our general views are biased, both in the sense of being unwarranted inclinations and in the sense that they are one of many viable perspectives. This reliance upon general views to determine relevancy creates additional difficulties for defenders who maintain that case methods of moral reasoning are not only useful, but more basic, reliable or prior to other forms of moral reasoning. If we cannot identify the case's relevant features and issues independently of our general views or biases, we need further explanation about why a case method or casuistry should be viewed as prior to or more basic or reliable than other forms of moral reasoning. Problems of bias also arise for other methods of reasoning. In medical science, case reviews are regarded as an unreliable way to form generalizations, and methods such as clinical trials are used to address bias.