{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

So regardless of ones own thoughts with respect to

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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 By this I simply mean that the rationalist 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 IsnIt So , by T. Gilovich, (1991), for example, is completely devoted to an attack on such beliefs as ESP and alternative medicine.
Background image of page 11

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
M . A . GILBERT MULTI - MODAL ARGUMENTATION PHIL OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES V OL 24 N R 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 rather to understand their use in argumentative interactions. Remember that astrology, according to the press, was accepted at the White House during Reagan's term as reasonable argumentation.
Background image of page 12
Image of page 13
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}