320 Years of History
Gold Member
The right thing in speaking really is that we should be satisfied not to annoy our hearers, without trying to delight them: we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts. Still, as has been already said, other things affect the result considerably, owing to the defects of our hearers.
-- Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book III, Chapter I
Time and again, I read posts on this forum wherein members make a claim of some sort and that they in turn offer not one well developed argument to support it. The frequency with which I see a dialectically structured argument is, in contrast, close to zero. It's as though people have this idea that if they say "such and such" is, it is. How much arrogance does it take for one to make utterances as though they be the Pope speaking on a matter about which he is deemed (by Catholicism) infallible? I don't know, but clearly more than I have.
I might be inclined to believe a claim is true if it's universally accepted, such as "the sky is blue," or "the Sun rises in the East." When a physicist attest to something having to do with how the natural work works, or when an economist speaks about economics, I'm again inclined to believe them, but I also expect them to produce some sort of scholarly evidence that what they have attested to is so. Too, I will believe that when a person says they've seen "this or that," I am willing to believe they did observe "whatever it is;" however, if I'm to concur that what they observed is evidence of something more than just their having seen it, again, I expect to see the correlation made and demonstrated.
Here's just one example of a litany of claims for which not one source or argument supporting them is provided: CDZ - Barrack, it was you.... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . Every one of them is presented as though they fairly present the truth in all material respects and we readers should accept them merely because the author presented them. I don't even care if one is a fan of Mr. Obama's or not; one need not be to see how empty those claims are as they are presented.
This is a forum where writing is the mode of communication. There is no time constraint on reading or writing a post. Is it asking too much for us to compose solid arguments -- seeing as this place exists to debate points not just utter catch phrases -- instead of making empty claims? Perhaps if more the posts offered presented cogent and well formed arguments, readers might actually be convinced of the claims made.
The phenomenon of making unsubstantiated claims -- be they true ones that cannot be supported, claims that are only somewhat true, or false ones -- is not limited to the people here. It seems our public figures and political candidates do it as well.
Moreover, those public figures have staff who are more than capable of, and who probably did, researching a topic and presenting the full picture to the candidate/official. Assuming I'm correct, and assuming one or more staffers did present an accurate picture to them (or they knew "the whole story" independently of what their staffers conveyed to them), what that means is that the speakers have deliberately elected to utter assorted half truths and lies, along with an occasional bit of the truth.
When did politicians decide that we voters do not deserve the modicum of respect that accompanies merely telling the truth, simply and fairly presenting the facts and telling us how they interpret them, and leaving it to us to decide for ourselves if we concur with and will adopt their interpretation? When did politicos decide that presenting "spun" details is what we want? But most importantly, why have so many voters acquiesced allowing elected officials and candidates get away with treating us as though we cannot analyze the facts for ourselves?
Note:
The comments above are not offered with a view toward or against any political party or position. People, so-called leaders, from all parties do it. Frankly, I don't care for it no matter who does it or what position they aim to portray or bolster.
-- Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book III, Chapter I
Time and again, I read posts on this forum wherein members make a claim of some sort and that they in turn offer not one well developed argument to support it. The frequency with which I see a dialectically structured argument is, in contrast, close to zero. It's as though people have this idea that if they say "such and such" is, it is. How much arrogance does it take for one to make utterances as though they be the Pope speaking on a matter about which he is deemed (by Catholicism) infallible? I don't know, but clearly more than I have.
I might be inclined to believe a claim is true if it's universally accepted, such as "the sky is blue," or "the Sun rises in the East." When a physicist attest to something having to do with how the natural work works, or when an economist speaks about economics, I'm again inclined to believe them, but I also expect them to produce some sort of scholarly evidence that what they have attested to is so. Too, I will believe that when a person says they've seen "this or that," I am willing to believe they did observe "whatever it is;" however, if I'm to concur that what they observed is evidence of something more than just their having seen it, again, I expect to see the correlation made and demonstrated.
Here's just one example of a litany of claims for which not one source or argument supporting them is provided: CDZ - Barrack, it was you.... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . Every one of them is presented as though they fairly present the truth in all material respects and we readers should accept them merely because the author presented them. I don't even care if one is a fan of Mr. Obama's or not; one need not be to see how empty those claims are as they are presented.
This is a forum where writing is the mode of communication. There is no time constraint on reading or writing a post. Is it asking too much for us to compose solid arguments -- seeing as this place exists to debate points not just utter catch phrases -- instead of making empty claims? Perhaps if more the posts offered presented cogent and well formed arguments, readers might actually be convinced of the claims made.
The phenomenon of making unsubstantiated claims -- be they true ones that cannot be supported, claims that are only somewhat true, or false ones -- is not limited to the people here. It seems our public figures and political candidates do it as well.
- Carly Fiorina
- Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Jeb Bush
- California Governor Jerry Brown
- Dr. Ben Carson
- Arizona State Senator Nancy Barto
- Bill Clinton
Note:
The Google search I did returned one result on the first page that pertains to Hillary Clinton, and I was inclined to include it in the list above until it became apparent that AP goofed in checking the facts.
Now I'm not so naive that I don't understand what spin/marketing is about. I get it. I realize too that a fair quantity of the sample statements I provided from public figures and candidates were made during oral presentations where the speakers may not have had time to present a fully developed argument. By the same token, however, it's not as though the second it'd take to state the claim and the source supporting it would cut greatly into their time: it doesn't take long to say "according to 'so and so' " or "the XYZ calculated...." The Google search I did returned one result on the first page that pertains to Hillary Clinton, and I was inclined to include it in the list above until it became apparent that AP goofed in checking the facts.
Moreover, those public figures have staff who are more than capable of, and who probably did, researching a topic and presenting the full picture to the candidate/official. Assuming I'm correct, and assuming one or more staffers did present an accurate picture to them (or they knew "the whole story" independently of what their staffers conveyed to them), what that means is that the speakers have deliberately elected to utter assorted half truths and lies, along with an occasional bit of the truth.
When did politicians decide that we voters do not deserve the modicum of respect that accompanies merely telling the truth, simply and fairly presenting the facts and telling us how they interpret them, and leaving it to us to decide for ourselves if we concur with and will adopt their interpretation? When did politicos decide that presenting "spun" details is what we want? But most importantly, why have so many voters acquiesced allowing elected officials and candidates get away with treating us as though we cannot analyze the facts for ourselves?
Note:
The comments above are not offered with a view toward or against any political party or position. People, so-called leaders, from all parties do it. Frankly, I don't care for it no matter who does it or what position they aim to portray or bolster.
