The Power of Data

With this chapter we start exploring extrinsic proofs. It is important for me to make that distinction just to make sure that I have an understanding of both kinds of proofs and more importantly that I am looking at the big picture of the invention process in rhetoric. It makes sense now that the authors devoted a little more than 50% of their work to the intrinsic proofs. As they say, the rhetor has to invent the intrinsic proofs (267), whereas the extrinsic proofs are situated. In my opinion, inventing the proofs is the most difficult process and the one that requires the most time and effort. However, Hawhee and Crowley remind us that extrinsic proofs as well require effort and especially “art and skill” (271). Additionally, they say that rhetors may have to employ invention to be able to interpret them and use them in favor of his or her argument (267).

Even though invention is necessary to build extrinsic proofs in a discourse, the authors focus mainly in stressing out the importance of evaluating the sources or the persons from which our proofs come from. In this sense, I find that extrinsic proofs are strongly related to ethos. The authors mention four kinds of extrinsic proofs: facts, data, artifacts and testimonies (267). After reading the chapter, one can see that the reliability of each one of them depends upon the ethos of the source or the person. Ethos is related to the good character or reputation of a person and, in this case the source of facts and data. The character and reputation are strongly related to the ethics. For example, if we are talking about testimonies it is important that the witness does not have any interests involved in testifying. As the authors mention, according to Aristotle, the reliable witnesses were those that “had nothing to gain by testifying” (271). In fact, the authors recommend that when evaluating community authorities, rhetors should look into their credentials, accuracy and motives and ideologies. In regards to data and facts, the situation is very similar. When using data, rhetors should verify who discovered the data and should examine the networks of interpretation (281). The latter, I would think, is very similar to motives and ideologies.

While reading this chapter, I could not help relating it directly with the story told in Green Zone, the last movie I watched. At first glance, it is just an action movie. However, it is based on real events, the falsification of intelligence dossiers by the US government to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In words of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV in the Press release of Intelligence Committee of June of 2008 “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

A few weeks ago we discussed the ethics involved in making up data in journalism or science. We even doubt the seriousness of doing it. But what if, as in this case, we look at data falsification when it is used to take a country to war? I had a vague memory that what the movie was telling was true, but was not completely sure. I remember hearing someone say something about it back in 2004. When I went to look for information about it in newspapers, I found that the movie is quite accurate. And in my opinion it offers an interesting reflection about the importance of verifying data and facts, evaluating your sources’ credentials and reliability and most importantly their motives and ideologies, in sum, their ethos. Moreover, this shows the importance of following Hawhee and Crowley suggestions with every single source of data and witness, even those who seem the most reliable ones. Because, who would have doubt the ethics of the president and vice-president of the United States? Who would have suspected from their motives and ideologies?