Should rhetoric win debates? (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's winter so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Should rhetoric win debates?

I'm grateful to Richard for this week's topic.

Suppose that a tricky question is debated publicly, either in speech or in writing. The debater who is more skilled at using words may attract the support of most of the people who take an interest. Then the position he or she favours will become the generally accepted one, at least for a while. But should this ever happen? When it comes to finding answers, should skill in verbal presentation count for anything?

In the natural sciences, it would seem that it should not. If there is a disagreement in physics, chemistry or biology, we want the theory that fits the evidence best and has the greatest explanatory power to become accepted, at least until a better theory comes along. The rhetorical skill of advocates of a theory proves nothing.

When we move on to understanding humanity, whether in the social sciences or in disciplines like history, maybe skilful presentation can be a guide to which answers we should prefer. The reason is that in these areas we seek an understanding of human beings in human terms. If a position can be presented in terms that people find appealing, maybe that shows that it really is in touch with human nature. For example, suppose one historian argues that a particular king who reorganised his government was motivated by mistrust and a desire for control, while another argues that his actions reflected abstract forces of development in state administration. The former historian will be able to tell a much more vivid tale, and will also be the one who interprets the king's reign in human terms.

Practical politics is the traditional field of rhetoric. From Pericles and Cicero to Emmeline Pankhurst and John F Kennedy, speakers have used fine words to persuade. We may be suspicious of this. After all, evil tyrants have also used words to convince supporters and intimidate opponents. But maybe rhetoric should persuade.

One argument for rhetoric's role is that there are often no right answers to questions in practical politics, only acceptable ones. And maybe the answers that can be presented most persuasively will turn out to be the most acceptable ones.

Another argument is that democracy will only work so long as there is lively debate, and it is the skilled use of language that keeps debate vigorous.

We can also discuss rhetoric in the courtroom. Should a brilliant performance by a lawyer ever decide who wins a case? It would seem not, but feel free to persuade us that sometimes it should.

Whoops, I seem not to have covered philosophy. But that is OK. Philosophers stick to rigorous reasoning, and never use verbal tricks in their arguments. Just look at Plato's dialogues.

Philosophers have also had plenty to say about persuasion through fine words, often but not always disapproving. If you would like a survey of what some have said, you can look at this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

We look forward to seeing you on Sunday, assuming you are persuaded that this will be an interesting discussion.