Even such mundane occurrences as a married couple's

Info iconThis preview shows pages 11–13. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Even such mundane occurrences as a married couple's simultaneously thinking and talking about the same thing would suffice to keep the category from being void. Secondly, the argument theorist must be careful not to do metaphysics when studying the modes of argument used. Many people, indeed, most of the world's population, believe the kisceral category is quite full, and that means that communications and, therefore, arguments will stem from it. (Is there not now a crystal store in every large town?) So regardless of one's own thoughts with respect to the legitimacy, correctness, or even existence, of kisceral arguments, they will be encountered because they are used. It is difficult to create examples of kisceral arguments that are not so outré as to take attention away from the example and to the more general issue of the validity of kisceral communications. The following is as mundane as might be found. Example 10. Greg looked at Lisa expectantly. \Don't you think we should raise the offer? He didn't seem too pleased with it.] Lisa shook her head, no. \Don't change a thing,] she said, \be patient, I just know he'll accept it.] The key to [10¡ is Lisa's feeling, her unprocessed belief that the offer they made will be accepted. One could explain this phenomenon by appealing to explicit experiences and showing how the process Lisa believes is her intuition is really a series of deductions based on her business experience. Such an explanation might go a long way toward comforting a positivist, but it does nothing to deal with the mode of argument Lisa chose. Regardless of why Lisa actually came to her conclusion, the reason she gives to Greg is kisceral. That is, it relies on a form of non-logical communication that is a synthesis of experience and insight. One further quick example: Example 11. "Did you buy that house, Paul?" "No, I got a really creepy feeling when I was there, and turned it down." "But it was such a good price!" "I don't care if they're giving it away. It gave me the creeps." 4 B y t h i s I s i m p l y m e a n t h a t t h e r a t i o n a list is usually very good at recasting any purportedly non-rational experience into a rational one. Indeed, whole clubs of rationalists band together to do just this. A book entitled, How We know What Isn¡t So , by T. Gilovich, (1991), for example, is completely devoted to an attack on such beliefs as ESP and alternative medicine. M.A. GILBERT MULTI-MODAL ARGUMENTATION PHIL OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES VOL 24 NR 2 .12 The kisceral category includes many sources of information that are not respected in the rationalist tradition. The examples presented above are recognizable and perhaps even sensible to everyone. They have been chosen to avoid red herrings. I certainly do not want to find myself in the position of defending life regressions because I believe there are contexts in which they are crucially used in arguments. Other, less sedate examples, may very well go beyond what is considered rational into such oddities as astrology, Bible quotation, channeling, and so on. It is not the concern of an argumentation theorist to judge the validity of such sources, but...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page11 / 13

Even such mundane occurrences as a married couple's...

This preview shows document pages 11 - 13. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online