The Value of Extrinsic Proofs

In reading this chapter, I cannot help but recall similar themes that were presented in Chapter 1: Ancient Rhetorics. This chapter dovetails nicely in confirming, “that facts are not very interesting or persuasive unless they are read within a network of interpretation” (11). Although, I think I could have stopped that quotation before the word “unless,” and I would have had an apt description of the portrayal of facts or extrinsic proofs in this chapter as well as throughout the history of rhetoric.

That is not to say that extrinsic proofs are not interesting or persuasive in today’s society. Quite the contrary, as the authors point out “modern rhetoricians place a much heavier emphasis on extrinsic proofs than the ancients did” (267). This is in part due to the fact that contemporary society gravitates towards statements that present data, testimony, or simply statements that are presented in the written word as “accurate and trustworthy” (267).

This reminds me of a point I believe Christian made last class about attempting to interpret the authors’ biases towards these concepts on rhetoric: namely that the fact they seem to have biased towards the value of pathetic proofs. Can textbooks present biased information? Isn’t there a sense of irony in scholars on rhetoric presenting their own personal biases in the context of defining and classifying rhetorical arguments?

I think simply based upon the fact that Crowley and Hawhee are presenting information about rhetoric and in a way unmasking the “tricks” that rhetors employ to get the audience to believe their positions as better than their opponents, I took them as more objective and trustworthy than perhaps I should.

The authors even point out that all forms of the written word should not be taken at face value (269). They then go on to establish that even in writing this book they took this into consideration and had to quote ancient rhetoricians in order to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject as well as to validate their interpretation of the theories and practices (272).

So in not acknowledging that Crowley and Hawhee had possible bias in presenting this information and also in not acknowledging that they had their own interpretations of the process of rhetoric that they may want to instill, I was falling victim to the same theme being established in this chapter. That simply because the text was presented in written form and assumed an air of authority, it was more accurate, objective, or reliable than it possibly truly is. That is not to claim that the text has become devalued in any sense for me or my perspectives, but simply that it confirms that rhetoric is everywhere, even in textbooks or other source material that is often considered to be the master source for information on a subject.

A representation of this concept can be found in a recent New York Times Article “A Claim of Pro-Islam Bias in Textbooks http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/education/23texas.html