"Above all, an example which is cited by a writer on an art should be proof of his own skill in that art."
While I agree someone citing the work of someone else should maintain some level of credibility and knowledge within that field, I don't think its outside the realm of possibility to cite something you know little about and still maintain your credibility as long as it isn't overdone. From a rhetorical standpoint, as expressed above, you shouldn't cite something unless you have thorough understanding. I wish I could have a detailed understanding of every source I cite, Im sure it would strengthen my credibility dramatically. Technology has greatly influenced understanding and interpreting sources; How would Anonymous feel about this?
"So do those very people who offer merchandise for sale go in search of a sample of it elsewhere; they say: 'We have piles of wheat' but have not a handful of grain to show as a sample"
In terms of references and credibility, temporarily misleading your audience for rhetorical effect may be a practical tool. An author may bait his or her audience with claims they later declare false simply to place an essence of unfamiliarity on the reader.
Andy,
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting question you raise, about what defines credibility in the age of technology. I don't know anything at all about neuroscience, but this device in my pocket can make me a credible speaker on the topic in about 30 seconds. It's a muddled line here...am I the credible one, or is Google? Or am I in fact credible for using Google? In college we use quotes all the time to support arguments, but often for me I cater my writing to the quote, instead of letting the quote cater to my argument. I dislike academic papers for this reason, because I feel a total loss of credibility when i'm making sense of someone else's thoughts instead of formulating my own.
As for misleading an audience as a practical tool, I don't really see how that works. Perhaps that's due to definition...because when I think of misleading, I think about "getting caught" and being accused by the audience who feels slighted for being misled. In context of a speech, misleading derails any credibility the audience might have given the speaker to begin with. I do, however, firmly believe in "sinister persuasion" which to me means successfully guiding the opinion of the audience into falsities (generally for selfish purposes) without their realization.
I suppose that it can be effective to make a false claim and correct it later in the same speech, to give that sense of humility instead of an all powerful larger than life speaker, but overall I think that the speaker should try to keep all parts of credibility intact for the best persuasive outcome.
Misquotation and misattribution is probably as old as language itself (wouldn't it be great if I could cite a resource on this topic - it might lend my supposition a bit more credibility). I suspect that our modern technology have both helped and hindered in this regard. In theory, knowledge is a mere Google search away if only we have the curiosity and resourcefulness to pursue it. However, misinformation seems just as likely to prevail in our pursuit of knowledge - and it certainly spreads like wild fire across social media.
ReplyDelete