Rhetoric is an opportunist, desperate for an avenue of entry through any means of persuasion and locution – a form of such extreme commitment to a conclusion that it bears not the ethics and honesty of poetry. An answer seeking a question which then targets a victim – a disliked topic or person.
Don’t be fooled. Rhetoric always defends an answer – always targets a victim. It is the opposite of poetry. It is the opposite of the process of sound science.
The Art of Rhetoric is the process by which dogmatic truths are enforced through the impugning of an antithetical idea or person. It consists of two components: Opportunistic Persuasion and Opportunistic Locution. These two elements are the subjects of the last two blog posts in The Ethical Skeptic:
How You Persuade Makes All the Difference
How You Say It Makes All the Difference
An Answer Looking for a Question Looking for a Victim
Rhetoric
/philosophy : argument : bias : inverse logic : sleight of hand/ : appearing to be focused on a given topic or a given case example, when a slightly different or less acceptable somewhat related position is actually being surreptitiously promoted. Enacted through opportunistic measures, desperate for an avenue of entry through any means of persuasion and locution – a form of such extreme commitment to a conclusion that it bears not the ethics and honesty of straightforwardness, science, transparency or poetry. An answer seeking a question which then targets a victim – a disliked topic or person.
Answer (truism): Ancient and cultural folklore is an unsound basis from which to make a claim that any folk-legend-monster exists or ever existed.
Question (rhetoric): Do “cryptids” exist, or are they simply figments of social archetypal folklore and imaginations?
Victim (target): Therefore, since it is most likely that the answer substantiates the question (apparent coherency), there is, quod erat demonstrandum, no substantiating evidence supporting any crypto-zoological being like Bigfoot.
The Ethical Skeptic does not believe in Bigfoot. But he also does not believe in bad science either.
Backward science is one of Social Skepticism’s primary means of enforcing consensus. Notice that, as always, no actual science is employed in the above process of rhetoric. If we pepper the process above (and in the below exhibit) with ‘facts,’ it renders the process no less an Art of Trickery than it already is in its essence. This is the chief craft of the most senior of Social Skeptics. It is pseudoscience.
An Example of Rhetoric in Journalistic Propaganda
The Ten Features of Rhetoric Based Propaganda
- It is fast in its retort (often right on the heels of the release of disliked information)
- It employs the worst of pathos based persuasion (polemic, apologetic, obdurate, philippic, coercion)
- It protects a single buried Answer (with a capital A)
- It is promulgated through the same, very familiar media channels
- It is written by low-experience, dilettante journalists – compliance minded B students who don’t know any better
- It is fraught with semantic and locution breaches
- It is written in simple to construct, imprecise and non-scientific phraseology
- It lacks technical competency on the subject being discussed
- It falsely spins scientific and research principles into totally different understanding
- It assumes an unmerited position of authority.
Well, as you can see below, the article is a case study in rhetoric. It bears all the elements of opportunistic persuasion, in this case in the form of an obdurate to apologetic. It cannot be a polemic or disputation because it offers no hint of any opposing viewpoint or substantiation of its “Answer” buried as lede inside the prejudicially framed text. Second, it follows through on the persuasion by taking the question raised (Has diabetes risen with obesity since 1988?), and feeding that via a disconcertingly large series (read that as – this person would not last five minutes in one of my labs or firms) of locution foibles into a
prescribed Answer: Type 2 [diabetes] is caused by poor eating, lack of exercise, and being obese.
assumptions they they want to slip by:
- poor eating and lack of exercise increased as a precursor to this 20 year period of diabetes increase. When in fact, this is not the case at all.²
- poor eating and lack of exercise are the source of the obesity epidemic. When in fact, it is gut flora which is being identified by science as the culprit. Gut flora being altered by a substance we are ingesting on a regular basis.³
The Targeted Victim: The idea that diabetes causes obesity. The idea that something introduced into the American diet since 1988, has precipitated a dramatic rise in pre-diabetes, and that obesity and pancreatic failure are the later symptoms and not the disease or cause itself. This is the antithetical idea which is targeted by Social Skeptics. Shelley Hazen’s medical pseudo-authority might be even palatable, if there were not at least 11 other maladies which have also skyrocketed in the last two decades (pancreatic cancer, rosacea, skin disorders, childhood diabetes, autoimmune disorders, thyroid disease, IBS/InfBS/Crohn’s, liver distress, kidney disorders, etc.).
click on image to enlarge
Such is the nature of journalistic propaganda from push-media outlets. Such is the nature of apparent coherency spun by social epistemologists for your consumption and consensus. Such is the nature of Social Skepticism. A lie in so many words. An answer looking for a victim.
Such is the nature of rhetoric.
¹ Hazen, Shelley, INQUISITR: Do Half of American Adults Have Diabetes? The Numbers May Not be That Clear Cut; http://www.inquisitr.com/2404697/do-half-of-american-adults-have-diabetes-the-numbers-may-not-be-that-clear-cut/
² “Physical Activity Statistics: No Leisure-Time Physical Activity Trends | DNPAO | CDC”. WHO. Retrieved Sep 9, 2015.
³ Science Daily: VIB – Intestinal flora determines health of obese people, Aug 28, 2013; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130828131932.htm