Forwarded message: Robert G. Chamberlain <[log in to unmask]>
Having read Kirt Wilson's original comment and the first two replies, I
think I have another piece for the discussion. When I was preparing for
my class in classical rhetorical theory this morning, I was struck by the
number of arguments used in the O.J. trial which were taken directly from
the works of sophists. One major example: Corax's reputed argument on
general probability. You know how it goes: the little guy wouldn't
attack the big guy because the big guy is tougher, so therefore the
little guy didn't attack. The big guy says the little guy knew you'd
think that way, so he could get away with it. O.J. was rheumatoid so
couldn't have had the strength to commit the murders, but he made a
videotape showing how strong he was. The trial was laden with such
argument.
Another issue, and one which I have heard indirectly addressed but have
not read or heard in overt discussion: evidence is interpreted in light
of one's experience or in light of the experience claimed by others whom
one respects. Thus, for those who believe the police are really a tool
of a racist society, DNA is not evidence but something that requires
critical thinking in response and which will require rejection unless
backed by some real evidence. Or spousal abuse is real and established,
therefore the abuser is guilty of other crimes as accused. These are not
"racial" or "sexual" in origin, but they do reflect the experience of
persons who perceive social systems as being opposed to themselves and
others like them.
Further, it is easy to accuse those who evaluate evidence differently,
based on their different experience, of being "emotional" and of
"ignoring evidence." I don't believe either group is doing so
intentionally--although there probably are blacks (and whites) who don't
care about evidence and women (and men) who see an imperfect analogy as
perfect--but I do believe we tend to polarize when saturated with
argument on a particularly emotional set of issues.
Finally, it seems that this aspect of humanity is not just "contemporary"
but human; accusations of irrationality were common in Aristophanes',
Isocrates', Plato's, Aristotle's, and many others' argument about what
should be the subject matter of rhetoric.
[^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^]
[ FROM Robert G. Chamberlain ]
[ Dept. of Communication and Journalism ]
= Seattle Pacific University =
= Seattle, WA 98119 =
[ EMAIL [log in to unmask] ]
[ PHONE 206/281-2095 (includes voice mail) ]
[__________________________________________________________]
------------------------------
