Reply to Munz

Munz has not grasped main point of The Rhetoric of Human Sciences, which is that intellectual historians need an art of argument.* According to Munz, rhetoric is what is left over when rational argument is finished, being merely the power to persuade when more rational methods fail. [W]e rely on rhetoric when there is no or little evidence for statement.... The heart of matter is that when statement can be shown to be true, no rhetoric is required to persuade people to give their assent. Rhetoric is said to concern a number of irrational, psychologically effective devices. The Munz definition leaves rational persuasion as something outside of rhetoric. There is one great exception where persuasion takes place without rhetoric, namely, reasonable or rational evidence

Epistemology · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science

• Epistemig rhetoric and criticism

  Robert L Scott•Quarterly Journal of Speech•1990

  Add to list