/
Rhetoric T he  art of persuasion Rhetoric T he  art of persuasion

Rhetoric T he art of persuasion - PowerPoint Presentation

tatiana-dople
tatiana-dople . @tatiana-dople
Follow
361 views
Uploaded On 2018-03-19

Rhetoric T he art of persuasion - PPT Presentation

A piece of argumentation that attempts to p ersuade especially by means other than the presentation of good evidence Rhetoric Rhetoric vs Logic Logic is aimed at truth Rhetoric is aimed at inducing ID: 657450

term rhetoric baby kill rhetoric term kill baby language people argument belief human bypass claim nephew pro living kid

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Rhetoric T he art of persuasion" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

RhetoricSlide2

T

he

art of persuasion

A piece of argumentation that attempts to persuade especially by means other than the presentation of good evidence.

RhetoricSlide3

Rhetoric vs. Logic

Logic is aimed at

truth

.Rhetoric is aimed at inducing belief.‘

R

hetoric

’ is usually a pejorative term among

philosophers

.

F

or

our purposes, rhetoric

not as

a

means

of manipulating others but as

an

obstacle

to

truth

.

Rhetoric:

nonlogical

(

nonrational

) modes of

persuasion

.Slide4

Aristotle

People are more easily persuaded if they think that something has been established by argument

even if no real argument has been

given.Slide5

M

otivated

inference

:emotional investment (pro or con) leads to selective collection, interpretation of evidence.Motivated

intuition

:

a claim just seems right, without our even thinking we have evidence for

it

.

Influencing, bypassing reasonSlide6

Creating negative (or positive) associations with a claim tends to bypass reason, make that claim seem false (or true

)

.

Abusive ad hominem: “he says that p, but he’s a child molester.”Argumentum ad Hitlerum: “you know who else believed p? Hitler!”

ad populum

: “everyone else believes p, so

p

.

Abuses of emotive rhetoricSlide7

A

ppeal

to force (

argumentum ad baculum): using threats to produce agreement.Often by intimidation: “anyone who disagrees is obviously an idiot!”

A

ppeal

to pity (

argumentum ad misericordiam

): invoking pity/guilt to produce belief: “this accusation has ruined my client’s reputation, his marriage, and his job

prospects”

is no evidence that the accusation is

false

.

Abuses of emotive rhetoricSlide8

Language of ArgumentsSlide9

Emotionally

charged

language

Rhetoric often attempts to bypass reasoning by direct appeal to emotions.Use of

connotation

to sway audience

“It’s hard to be against a bill that says that once a baby’s heart is beating, you shouldn’t take his life.”Slide10

Emotionally

charged

language

Rhetoric often attempts to bypass reasoning by direct appeal to emotions.Use

of

connotation

to sway

audience

:

“It’s hard to be against a bill that says that once a

baby

’s heart is beating, you shouldn’t take

his

life.”Slide11

Emotionally

charged

language

‘Pro-life’ vs. ‘pro-choice’‘Anti-choice

extremist’ vs. ‘abortion-loving baby-killer’

B

aby

’ vs. ‘parasite’Slide12

Converse:

euphemism

Product of conception” rather than “fetus”“Would you force a woman to have sex with you if you could get away with it?”

50% said yes

“Would you rape a woman if you could get away with it?”

15% said yes

!

!Slide13

“Terrorists should be

punished

.”“Freedom fighters should be punished.”

Emotional connotation sometimes depends on audience.“progressive” at Huffington Post“progressive” on Glenn Beck showSlide14

Is neutral language possible?

Is neutral language desirable?Slide15

Sloganeering and cliche

W

ell-worn

sayings with unclear meanings make you feel like an argument has been given.“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people

.

“You need to think outside the

box

.

“What doesn’t kill us makes us

stronger

.

“You get what you pay

for

.

”Slide16

Vivid example

U

nfortunately

, often more convincing than actual statistics due to availability heuristic.F

allacy

of misleading vividness: allowing the vividness of an example to influence your belief in a statistical or probabilistic

claim

.Slide17

Vagueness vs. ambiguity

Vague:

imprecise; having poorly defined

boundaries.baldshort

Ambiguous:

having two or more distinct, nonoverlapping,

meanings

.

bank

flying planes can be dangerous (amphiboly)Slide18

Fallacy of equivocation

Using ambiguous term in two different

ways

.My nephew is still just a kid.A kid is a baby goat.

My nephew is a baby

goat

.Slide19

Fallacy of equivocation

Using ambiguous term in two different

ways

.My nephew is still just a kid.

A

kid

is a baby

goat

.

My nephew is a baby

goat

.Slide20

Equivocation?

A

1

-day-old embryo is a living human being.It is morally wrong to kill a living human being, except in self-defense.It is morally wrong to kill a

1-day-old

embryo

.Slide21

Equivocation?

A

1-day-old

embryo is a living human being

.

It is morally wrong to kill a

living human being

, except in

self-defense

.

It is morally wrong to kill a

1-day-old

embryo

.

m

etabolically

active human tissue

f

ull-fledged

, autonomous person

Some pro-choice people would only accept these premises if the key term shifts meaning in the two

premises

.Slide22

Definitions

N

ecessary

and sufficient conditions that capture the meaning of a

term

.

M

ust

do justice to

already existing

meaning

.Slide23

Two exceptions

Stipulative definition

: introduction of new term, or technical use of old

term.Avoid

misunderstandings, etc.

Persuasive definition

: sneak extraneous features, often emotive, into

definition

.

e.g., “homosexual” means “having unnatural desire for those of same

sex

.

”Slide24

Fallacy of

m

any

questions:e.g., “When did you stop beating your wife?”i.e., p and q, or p and not-q?Presupposes

p, without giving opponent chance to deny

it

.

Related

f

allacySlide25

Fallacies vs.

p

ersuasive (

rhetorical) tricksFallacy: mistake in reasoning, argument that fails to support conclusion

.

Rhetorical trick: doesn’t attempt to offer

argument

.

bypass reasoning altogether, manipulate belief formation by engaging the intuitive processor

I

f

you

want to be in charge of your belief, make sure the conscious rule-follower is

engaged

.