Xeno:
Debating, Rhetoric, peer review are all overrall systems of knowledge.
All are processes for evaluating the worth of theory and hypothesis.
Without it there is no way to evaluate competing theories and scientific progress cannot continue, but has to rely on dogma.
::Sigh::
and my contention is that coconut ice cream is the very best!
I do not. I think “mangles” (in this context) means “makes noticeable speaking mistakes.” Perhaps you’re confused by Stoid’s use of the phrase “on a fairly regular basis” which does not mean “more than average” as you seem to believe, but instead means “frequently”.
It shows first that Bush does, in fact, make speaking mistakes. It shows further that those speaking mistakes are common enough to produce collectible examples, and for Bush to have gained some degree of notoriety for his tendency toward those errors. What the cite fails to do is to establish any specific frequency of error, but such specificity is hardly required; the fact that the errors have been made during (at minimum) several speeches establishes the fact that there is a frequency at which Bush speaking errors occur.
The scientific method and peer review are not purely rhetorical processes. Yes, some rhetoric is involved in critiques of published results, but the scientific method is definitely not rhetorical in nature.
You’re the one who cited Aristotle. I asserted that rhetoric is not science, and gave a brief description of the purpose of rhetoric. Rhetoric purports to ferret out truth, Scylla, something with which science is most definitely not concerned.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I think it’s a nearly universal contention that the scientific method and peer review would not be characterized as rhetorical processes, except insofar as there is rhetoric involved. But by that standard, television commercials, games of Monopoly, and the grading of exams are rhetorical processes as well.
Let’s take a look and see what Aristotle did say, shall well?
The below translation is mine. The references are, of course, Bekker indices. I trust that whatever volume of Aristotle you have contains them.
1354a
The two emphasized phrases read as follows:
and
Aristotle always drew a fundamental distintion between techne, art, and episteme, science. While rhetoric can indeed be explored systematically, it deals with no specific branch of human knowledge.
Boethius and the medieval philosophers agreed, placing rhetoric in the trivium of liberal arts rather than in the quadrivium of natural and physical sciences. The distinction between Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectic and the hard sciences has persisted to this day.
I would be delighted to engage in a debate on Aristotle. There aren’t enough of those around here.
MR
(edited to fix vB code errors)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 06:48 PM]
Gee whiz, I know Greek but I can’t code for kopros. So much for wowing all of my GD colleagues. :rolleyes:
Thanks for the expert hand, Maeglin.
–R&G are Dead
Maeglin:
Your initials wouldn’t be RR, would they?
gasp Ronald Reagan?! :eek:
maeglin:
and one will hopefully concede that Aristotle’s notions of what seperated an art and a science were pretty different form modern ones.
I think it would be fair to say that Aristotle considered science to be the study of the physical world and little else. You’ll note that he classifies things like medicine and math as arts and not sciences as well.
No. I usually conclude my posts with my initials, MR.
Who is RR, and why do you ask?
Scylla: Could you provide us with your definition of what does and does not constitute a science? A discipline of ostensibly discoverable truths, or what?
Yes, the definition of science has certainly changed, as Aristotle did not study mathematics as we do today. I believe I mistook your argument in my zeal to parade my knowledge of Aristotle. I believed that you were relying on his definition of rhetoric to justify your contention that it is a science. Upon reflection, it appears that you were doing no such thing.
MR
Scylla said:
Besides, before you go claiming that Aristotle’s not a good judge of what makes a science, don’t you think you ought to retract this little gem of yours (which started the Aristotle thing in the first place) in light of Maeglin’s post?
Hmm?
Robert Rhys.
Your translation is very close to his (from that first excerpt, anyway) and I wondered if you were he.
Maeglin, given the quote in my last post, I don’t think you mistook anything. I ain’t saying nothin’ about your zeal, though. 
I honestly do not know whether to be flattered or insulted. I did spend almost an hour translating that passage. Aristotle’s language is extremely pedestrian and straightforward, to be sure. My definitions are pretty much straight out of Liddell & Scott’s lexicon.
So I would ask you then, are you accusing me of plagiarism or complementing my Greek skills?
BTW, a Google search reveals that W. Robert Rhys’ translation is almost 50 years old. For the record, I am 23.
I do not mean to be jumping the gun, but I am rather sensitive to even the slightest perceived accusations of plagiarism.
MR
We’ll see. You’re a little ahead of yourself for the moment.
This may sound like hedging, but I’d like to think I have a reputation for conceding a point when it’s called for. I’d like to see if Maeglin sees what I was getting at with my medicine/math not being sciences according to Aristotle.
No, no accusation implied stated or otherwise conveyed. Sorry if I gave you that impression.
Nor am I complementing your Greek skills (I don’t know any Greek, so a compliment would be meaningless.)
I wondered if you might be Rhys with an updated translation.
Since the Rhys translation is my favorite, you can take that as a compliment. My understanding is that in a translation one can usually be faithful to literal content only at the expense of tone and subtext, and it’s the rare translator that can combine the two successfully and bring across a faithful rendering.
I wouldn’t mind seeing more of your translation, but it reads like the good qualities of Rhys to me, as you seem to have captured tone and subtext with similar skill to my ear.
On with the debate?
.
Scylla, let me see if I’m following you here (or if I’m “getting ahead of myself”):
You used Aristotle as authority to support your proposition that rhetoric is a science.
Maeglin comes along and shows you that Aristotle did not, in fact, consider rhetoric to be a science.
You counter (?) by stating that Aristotle’s definition of science is different from that of the modern-day.
You’ve just undercut your own initial argument. What am I missing? Even if Aristotle believed rhetoric to be a science, your latter point renders his authority on the subject pretty well null and void.
So retract or don’t retract, but I would like to see your own definition of science.