"Consensus" as the strategy selected by scientists associated with the IPCC--a poor rhetorical choice.
In a close textual analysis of a short debate, I show how an outstanding scientist is unable to simultaneously exert his authority and to advocate effectively--especially when up against an outstanding advocate on the other side.
We don't trust Wikipedia because we're confident that the collective of editors know stuff. We trust Wikipedia because the Wikipedians love it.
Even under favorable conditions, evidence-based technical arguments become transformed into appeals to expert authority when they enter the public sphere.
Argumentation, while it seldom resolves issues, does create conditions under which collective intentions can more securely be ascribed.
But how do people who disagree--often deeply--manage to locate the shared premises they need in order to have an argument?
"Issue" is a central regulatory concept within argumentative practice; the issues are what we argue about. In this paper, I develop a theory of issues, and in particular, the practical means arguers have for forcing others to attend to their issues.
As seen in the OJ Simpson criminal trial, arguing can be both noncooperative and normatively good.
I give an account of the force of the appeal to authority, based on the sophisticated rhetorical practice of ancient Rome's greatest orator, Cicero.
July 14, 2012
0