Rhetoric And Evidence

The book traces the changing relation and intense debates between law and literature in U.S. American culture, using examples from the 18th to the 20th century (including novels by Charles Brockden Brown, James Fenimore Cooper, Harper Lee, and William Gaddis). Since the early American republic, the critical representation of legal matters in literary fictions and cultural narratives about the law served an important function for the cultural imagination and legitimation of law and justice in the United States. One of the most essential questions that literary representations of the law are concerned with, the study argues, is the unstable relation between language and truth, or, more specifically, between rhetoric and evidence. In examining the truth claims of legal language and rhetoric and the evidentiary procedures and protocols which are meant to stabilize these claims, literary fictions about the law aim to provide an alternative public discourse that translates the law's abstractions into exemplary stories of individual experience. Yet while literature may thus strive to institute itself as an ethical counter narrative to the law, in order to become, in Shelley’s famous phrase “the legislator of the world”, it has to face the instability of its own relation to truth. The critical investigation of legal rhetoric in literary fiction thus also and inevitably entails a negotiation of the intrinsic value of literary evidence.

An exploration of exaggerated cases of conspiracy theories which helps to reveal why traditional modes of argument fail against unwarranted, unsound, or untrue evidence.

Save Lives or Save the Rhetoric? is for those who think for themselves and follow the logic and the evidence wherever it leads. It offers an alternative to believing what others tell us through the media, the pundits, the politicians and all those partisans who benefit from their particular narratives. Whether we know it or not, we are inundated with rhetoric that is based on the numerous forms of flawed reasoning and fallacies which are discussed in this book. The first step is to develop the skills needed to distinguish between rhetorical claims and evidence-based claims. This book provides a method to accomplish that. David H. Goldenberg presents and shows how to debug many currently relevant real world examples. Innovative discussion questions provide the reader an opportunity to practice and be actively involved. This book is not about taking positions but about learning how to analyze and assess them using logic, evidence, data analysis, and economics—not confirmation bias. Hopefully the reader will resist the rhetoric, with its reductionism and polarization, by depoliticizing their approach to this book’s intent and content. The goal of the examples, theory, case studies, economics, statistics, historical documents, and data analysis offered in Save Lives or Save the Rhetoric? is to provide citizens with an informed approach to examining and evaluating the issues, the rhetoric, and the evidence in order to ultimately make their own informed decisions. The second part of the book delves into concepts and methods that any intelligent citizen may apply in order to make informed decisions about policy proposals. The objective throughout is pedagogy, not partisanship: to help the reader better understand current events, better identify the rhetoric in partisan debates, and better evaluate public policy.

During the 1990s, unprecedented numbers of Americans turned to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), an umbrella term encompassing health practices such as chiropractic, energy healing, herbal medicine, homeopathy, meditation, naturopathy, and traditional Chinese medicine. By 1997, nearly half the US population was seeking CAM in one form or another, spending at least $27 billion out-of-pocket annually on related products and services. As CAM rose in popularity over the decade, so did mainstream medicine's interest in understanding whether those practices actually worked, and how. Medical researchers devoted considerable effort to testing CAM interventions in clinical trials, and medical educators scrambled to assist physicians in advising patients about CAM. In Bounding Biomedicine, Colleen Derkatch examines how the rhetorical discourse around the published research on this issue allowed the medical profession to maintain its position of privilege and prestige throughout this process, even as its place at the top of the healthcare hierarchy appeared to be weakening. Her research focuses on the ground-breaking and somewhat controversial CAM-themed issues of The Journal of the American Medical Association and its nine specialized Archives journals from 1998, demonstrating how these texts performed rhetorical boundary work for the medical profession. As Derkatch reveals, the question of how to test healthcare practices that don't fit easily (or at all) within mainstream Western medical frameworks sweeps us into the realm of medical knowledge-making--the research teams, clinical trials, and medical journals that determine which treatments are safe and effective--and also out into the world where doctors meet patients, illnesses find treatment, and values, practices, policies, and priorities intersect. Through Bounding Biomedicine, Derkatch shows exactly how narratives of medicine's entanglements with competing models of healthcare shape not only the historical episodes they narrate but also the very fabric of medical knowledge itself and how the medical profession is made and remade through its own discursive activity.

This book explores social constructionism and the language of mental distress. Mental health research has traditionally been dominated by genetic and biomedical explanations that provide only partial explanations. However, process research that utilises qualitative methods has grown in popularity. Situated within this new strand of research, the authors examine and critically assess some of the different contributions that social constructionism has made to the study of mental distress and to how those diagnosed are conceptualized and labeled. This will be an invaluable introduction and source of practical strategies for academics, researchers and students as well as clinical practitioners, mental health professionals, and others working with mental health such as educationalists and social workers.

In ancient Athenian courts of law, litigants presented their cases before juries of several hundred citizens. Their speeches effectively constituted performances that used the speakers’ appearances, gestures, tones of voice, and emotional appeals as much as their words to persuade the jury. Today, all that remains of Attic forensic speeches from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE are written texts, but, as Peter A. O’Connell convincingly demonstrates in this innovative book, a careful study of the speeches’ rhetoric of seeing can bring their performative aspect to life. Offering new interpretations of a wide range of Athenian forensic speeches, including detailed discussions of Demosthenes’ On the False Embassy, Aeschines’ Against Ktesiphon, and Lysias’ Against Andocides, O’Connell shows how litigants turned the jurors’ scrutiny to their advantage by manipulating their sense of sight. He analyzes how the litigants’ words work together with their movements and physical appearance, how they exploit the Athenian preference for visual evidence through the language of seeing and showing, and how they plant images in their jurors’ minds. These findings, which draw on ancient rhetorical theories about performance, seeing, and knowledge as well as modern legal discourse analysis, deepen our understanding of Athenian notions of visuality. They also uncover parallels among forensic, medical, sophistic, and historiographic discourses that reflect a shared concern with how listeners come to know what they have not seen.