- Science: Hypothesize, attempt to disconfirm hypothesis, succeed, new hypothesis, repeat 352 times, finally find hypothesis that we fail to disconfirm.
- Rhetoric/Law: Decide which conclusion you wish to pursue. Search for evidence that supports your conclusion. Look further for evidence that devalues the opposing evidence.
Several questions
- Which way does normal human cognition work?
- Which way do your rhetorical opponents usually work?
- Which way do your rhetorical compatriots usually work?
- Which way do scientists usually work?
- Which way do YOU usually work?
If you answered (A) to ANY of the above questions, consider trying again.
UPDATE (Organization above, and this):
If you feel particularly generous, you MIGHT opt to believe (mostly on wishful thinking) that on questions 4&5 there is some initial science before the shift to rhetoric.
Posts
2 comments:
But that's not how rhetoric and law work. Both of these have a conception of truth-seeking based on two (or more) sides each making the best case for their side - and yes, this is based on selective evidence, etc, but each side is a check on the excesses of the other because it is in their interests to pick holes in their opponents. Then when the cases are made, a neutral arbiter decides between them.
To the extent there is a problem in human cognition, it is that it too much represents science (pattern finding) and too little represents rhetoric/law (oppositional confrontation). We all need more of an internal devil's advocate.
My claim...if you have a neutral arbiter...ok. But you don't. The model of the self is advocate, not disconfirmer, and very not the neutral party. It's far worse than the scientific model.
Honestly...the scientific model, understood correctly as the attempt to disconfirm, is pretty good. Two-sided argument with a neutral party is lovely...but mostly fictional.
Post a Comment