I. Intro Bacon
[I have used information from
Encyclopedia Britannica for the Bacon presentation.]
Sir
Francis Bacon lord chancellor of
In his
work Bacon rejects what he calls ‘idols’ - causes of human error.
He distinguishes four idols, or main varieties of proneness
to error. The idols of the tribe are intellectual faults that are
universal to mankind, or, at any rate, very common, for example a tendency
toward oversimplification. The idols of the cave
are the intellectual peculiarities of individuals. One person may concentrate
on likenesses, another on differences between things. One may fasten on detail,
another on the totality. The idols of the marketplace
are the kinds of error for which language is responsible. Language is
unreliable nature and suggests to us things that are not true, for example that
the sun rises. Idols of the theatre are mistaken systems of philosophy.
Against
the idols, Bacon musters a leading idea: Knowledge of nature is to rely on the
findings of the senses. Bacon is convinced that the human mind is fitted for
knowledge of nature and must derive it from observation, not from abstract
reasoning. The method of science ought to be inductive. Generalizations are
validated in an inductive way.
II. Back to Aristotle.
The three pisteis:
pathos, ethos, logos.
Ethos
(1356a; I.2.4):
Positively: character traits, personal representation that persuade people to
adopt or accept or endorse the speaker’s opinions, proposals or evaluations.
Which traits will undermine a speaker’s appeal to character? Credence/credibility is the general trait:
the speaker is a person who is worthy of credence (as concerns this subject.)
Aristotle: practical intelligence (phronêsis),
a virtuous character, and good will. My examples: experience, honesty,
expertise, thoughtfulness, authority, previous good advice, authoritativeness
(?), determinacy (?), be loved by audience (?). And
the opposites: inexperience, dishonesty, rashness, insecurity, hesitation, disagreeable,
hated by audience . . . Important: different qualities of speaker will be
differently significant for issue: political decision, personal advice, expert
witness, estimate, etc.
An
example from Bacon, The Great Instauration, “Preface:” Suppose you were
proposing a revolutionary break in the way of doing science to your readers.
Many of the things scientists believe and methods they follow would not be
valid if your proposals were adopted. You need to count on extraordinary
resistance to your proposals. How would you present yourself, to increase the
credence of your proposals? What kind of perception might damage your
credibility? You will not be able to claim expertise or experience in the
subject matter ‘new science.’ It will not do to present you as honest. Nor will
it be good to insist on your successes in different domains, like
statesmanship, martial skills, proven leadership. You may want to insist on the
care that characterizes you; on your own initial hesitation to deviate from
common paths, you may want to emphasize your lack of ambition.
Pathos/appeal to feelings: “Hearers are
led to feel emotion by the speech” disposing them favorably or unfavorably
towards a subject matter or issue (1356a, I.2.2 and I.2.5).
Some
examples from Aristotle: anger/calmness (of speaker, towards others or issues);
belittling/aggrandizing (of him-/herself, others, issues and problems); feeling
friendly towards/feeling inimical; fear of/confidence (in speaker or issue);
pity; indignation; envy.
Example from Bacon, The
Great Instauration, “Preface:” Suppose, again, you were proposing a
revolutionary break in the way of doing science to your readers. Many of the
things scientists believe and methods they follow would not be valid if your
proposals were adopted. You need to count on extraordinary resistance to your
proposals. What emotions would you like to arouse in your reader? Which
emotions would you like to avoid? Avoid, perhaps, fear of uncertainty, love for
tradition and the gradated, comfort of familiar. Use, perhaps, curiosity,
disappointment with failures of what you want to replace, depict or promise
grandiose achievements of the new ways; belittle the old; etc.
logos/argument.
To argue (rhetorically) “Show the truth or the apparent truth
from whatever is persuasive in each case.” (1356a, I.2.6).
Recall the definition of
persuasion: To change
or otherwise influence the attitude of a hearer by using communication (means:
speech, images, sound, gestures; expression and personal presentation).
Attitudes that can be the
objects of change: beliefs and opinions, likings and dislikes, held values,
what one holds to be right or wrong, feelings, dispositions towards things,
decisions.
Persuasive: What is an apt
communicative means to change an attitude of the recipient? Aristotle: What is
apt, in the way of delivering a speech, to lead the hearer to adopt, strengthen
or weaken the attitudes of
- believing in a truth or untruth,
- the validity or invalidity of an evaluation
- the rightness or wrongness of a decision
- feeling
a feeling
Note that it is enough to appear
to be true, valid, right or wrong, or to be apt to provoke a certain feeling.
Appearance cuts the art of persuasion from a strong bond to truth or validity.
It admits deception as a possible means. But it also lets the receptive
attitudes become one of the criteria for ‘good’ rhetoric. For only what the
audience is disposed to accept as true or valid, only the direction in
which the audience can be swayed, is ‘persuasive.’ Psychology, and the right assessment of the concrete
audience and target will be indispensable to a good orator. This is as true for
logos as it is for pathos.
The two main varieties of
argument: enthymemes/arguments from premises to conclusions and paradigmata/examples.
1. The enthymeme/argument
from premises towards a conclusion:
Background conditions for a
rhetorically adequate enthymeme:
It must be relevant for the
issues under discussion.
There must be at least two
possibilities the issues can be decided or resolved.
The premises must not be in
doubt.
The argument is often more
promising if condensed.
The general and explicit form
of an enthymeme
A: Premise 1
Premise 2
. . .
. . .
Conclusion
Attention: not all enthymemes
are relying on logic for validity. Some use probability/likelihood, some are
true “only for the most part,” still others use the relation of sign to
signified.
The varieties:
Logic: If all Cretans lie,
then this Cretan here must be a liar. The speaker can use his audience’s
prejudice to denounce that Cretan as a liar, without showing that what he said
is a lie. (Think of how this kind of argument has been powerfully employed by
racists.)
Everyday situations can be
broken down to logical arguments: If the only means to save the city is to wage
preventive war against an inimical neighbor then, if you are a patriot and want
to save your city you must be in favor of preventive war. The speaker will try
to represent the action he favors as the only means for a good everyone agrees
with, and will do everything in his power to prevent his audience to think of
alternatives.
The enthymeme derived from
likelihood: Example: It is more often the case that those who wear helmets
while riding bikes suffer less severe head wounds in an accident than those who
don’t. Therefore it is better to wear a helmet.
The enthymeme from signs
argues from the experienced necessary connection between the sign and what it
signifies. Example: If fever always indicates illness, then finding that
someone has fever allows the conclusion that he/she is sick (compare 1357a,
I.2.18.)
Two examples from Bacon’s
“Preface”
(our
text p. 7)
P1: The sciences do not make progress.
P2: The sciences do not make progress because of the ways
in which they are
presently
executed.
C: A
new kind of science is required for the sciences to be able to progress.
Note that the actual
presentation in Bacon is condensed, exactly as Aristotle predicts in 1357a,
I.2.13.) When you are asked to reconstruct an enthymeme from Bacon, you need to
detect the implicit enthymeme.
2. The paradigm/example:
There are four elements in
exemplification. Three of them will be important here. The first two:
(1) what ‘gives’ the example and exemplifies
(2) what the example is an example for, the exemplified.
If “five” is meant to be an
example for a four-letter word, then “five” is the exemplifier and exemplifying
element, and ‘four-letter-words’ are the items that are exemplified.
(3) The third element is the relation of
similarity or analogy between exemplifier and exemplified.
It is often of the complex
form:
(1) Exemplifier: A stands to
B
(2) Exemplified: C stands to
D
(3) Similarity or analogy: {A
stands to B} as {C stands to D}
(4) Finally: ‘the respect.’
All exemplification is ‘in a respect.’ In the example of the word “five”, the
respect is ‘quantity of letters in a word.’ The respect allows to control
whether or not the example is good. If the alleged exemplifier does not even
fall under the respect, it does not present an example at all. For example:
‘five is a four-letter word’ does not qualify as an example of four-letter
words, because it talks about the number four, and not about the word “four.”
The word “five,” on the other hand, does not exemplify five-letter words. The
exemplifying element shows features, relations or other formal traits of the
exemplified.
Together, these elements form
the paradigm:
The exemplifying item
exhibits a trait or order that is also a trait or order of the exemplified.
Therefore it is persuasive to think that the validity of the exemplifying
supports the validity of the exemplified. The transfer between the two is by
analogy.
Example from Greek politics:
You want to argue that administrative positions ought not to be selected by
lot. So you ask your audience: Would you choose athletes for a competition by
lot rather than by capacity to compete? The similarity: What counts for
athletes and administrators alike is competence. So, what is valid for the
selection of athletes is also valid for the selection of administrators! (The
respect is: you choose for a function by selecting those who are best suited to
fulfill that function well.) You rely on the belief of your audience that
athletes ought to be selected by competence to perform.
Attention: There may be other
reasons why to choose administrators by lot. Fairness and equality may be a
value best realized by random selection. The speaker who uses the example will
either be interested to keep you away from the alternative, or will need to
argue specifically that competence is more important that fairness,
or that random selection is not the fairest means.
The persuasive power of the
paradigm: The example offers concretion, often intuitive grasp of what the
speaker wants to get across. Many examples have the advantage of being real or
saying something the audience already accepts. The speaker can expect a
transfer of credibility from the exemplifying reality to the reality of
validity he tries to establish, i.e. the exemplified. Aristotle points to
historical analogies, to fables. But really every accepted story or prejudice
can serve. The clever speaker will choose an example where the exemplifying
part is shared by the audience, and the similarity intuitively clear.
Example
from Bacon. “Preface” (our text p.
7):
Bacon there says: “And since
an assumption of wealth is among the greatest causes of poverty, and faith in
things presently existing leads to neglect of true means of assistance for the
future, it is useful, in fact absolutely necessary, that . . . I dispel the
excessive fame and admiration accorded to those discoveries made hitherto . . .”
Let us assume that “an
assumption of wealth is among the greatest causes of poverty” is established
common knowledge among the audience.
Now we can divide the
paradigm into the elements just spelled out:
Step 1: Paradigm/example is a
case of induction and proceeds from particulars to a universal.
Step 2: In our case the
particular is: I think erroneously I have a lot of money, therefore I allow
myself to spend lavishly, and discover that I have impoverished myself.
Step 3: The generalization:
Mistakenly believing that one is rich may turn into a cause of poverty. This is
the exemplifying element, assumed to be believed by the audience.
Step 4: The analogy:
Mistakenly believing to be rich relates to impoverishment as mistakenly
believing that one is rich in knowledge relates to neglect of true means of
assistance in the pursuit of knowledge. This is the paradigm.
Step 5: Return to the
particular: Give up the belief that you are rich in knowledge. Accept that more
knowledge ought to be acquired, and avail yourself of
the means of acquiring more/better knowledge. This is the message to be
conveyed, and the persuasion to be achieved.