Hi Ken,
Thanks for your detailed reply to my hurried note.
Brain freeze on deontic - should have been 'deictic' - in both cases.
(Though deontic logic (Kripke) is really useful as a basis for resolving
pseudo 'wicked' problems, design rationale and design space analysis if one
ignores its original meaning).
My understanding of the commonality of the multiple definitions of 'proof'
is as the establishment of something via testing. I suspect in your case,
this view on proof would translate to something equivalent to the activity
of 'formal argument' intended to establish a preferred position.
In what I wrote, I apologise for having just discovered a hidden (to me)
tautology of defining proof as 'logically-derived proof' - and hence
excluding rhetoric and deictic by definition.
My understanding (pre your quoting of OED) of 'casuism' is of it being
argument by reference to authority and case, primarily in relation to
religious authority. This seems to stand ok with the literature, with and
without OED. You have somehow, however, converted my words 'casuism as a
basis for proof' to 'model of proof' which is rather different and I
suspect reflects differences in how we see 'proof'.
As to me defining rhetoric in terms of 'manipulation of belief and
emotion', That seems to me a reasonably close (if hurried) explanation of
rhetoric in its meaning (Greek and nowadays) as 'persuasion', whether the
persuasion is aimed at 'truth' or not (or knowledge vs opinion). 'Rhetoric'
in whatever its form differs from logic, and it is logic (valid reasoning
and avoiding fallacious reasoning) that is usually considered as the essence
of proof (testing) in research and theory making rather than the rhetorical
ability to persuade.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2012 3:06 PM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Role of references in research
Hi, Terry,
Your note to Susan Hagan on the Greek models of proof is incorrect. You
described four terms:
-snip-
Logic - logically structured analytical derivation of proof from previously
agreed axioms Deontic - self-evident proof Casuistic - proof on the basis
of authority (proof from the bible) Rhetoric - proof by manipulation of
belief and emotion
-snip-
The last three terms in this list are not Greek models of proof.
Deontic arguments do not involve "self-evident proof." The Oxford English
Dictionary defines the word deontic as "of or relating to duty, obligation,
etc."
Your misunderstanding of the term "deontic" explains the odd comment you
made in an earlier post. After telling a story rather than answer a
question, you suggested that you would explain the story to me if I did not
find it "deontically obvious." While this specific comment puzzled me, I
found the entire post so odd that I never answered.
At any rate, deontology is a branch of ethics. Deontic logic is a
specialized logic involving entailments and the distinctions between what is
permissible, optional, andimpermissible or necessary, contingent, and
impossible. The word deontic comes from the Greek word "deon," meaning
"duty." The Oxford English Dictionary defines deontology as "The science of
duty; that branch of knowledge which deals with moral obligations; ethics."
Deontology examines how ethical systems require, permit, or forbid certain
choices.
Casuistry is not a model of proof. The Greeks would have used the term
sophistry for what wedescribe as casuistry. While a casuist may offer
argument from authority orproof from the Bible, there are many form of
casuist reasoning. By definition, casuistry involves specious reasoning. The
OED defines casuistry as: "The science, art, or reasoning of the casuist;
that part of Ethics which resolves cases of conscience, applying the general
rules of religion and morality toparticular instances in which
'circumstances alter cases', or in which there appears to be a conflict of
duties. Often (and perhaps originally) applied to a quibbling or evasive way
of dealing with difficult cases of duty; sophistry."
Rhetoric is not "proof by manipulation of belief and emotion." In fact,
rhetoric was never a model of proof in classical Greek thinking.
The OED defines rhetoric as, "The art of using language effectively so as to
persuade or influence others, esp. the exploitation of figures of speech and
other compositional techniques to this end; the study of principles and
rules to be followed by a speaker or writer striving for eloquence, esp. as
formulated by ancient Greek and Roman writers." Rhetoric is an art of
invention andpersuasion, but it is not a mode of logical proof. Rather,
rhetoricians mayemploy logic among other means in their deployment of
language to persuade.
Experts in classical rhetoric would be horrified by the notion that rhetoric
is "proof by manipulation of belief and emotion." The entire point of
rhetorical studies in classical Greece was to adduce sound argument from
evidence, and then to present it persuasively.
Susan has to be kidding when she describes herself as a "black box." She
earned her PhD at Carnegie Mellon University with a thesis on rhetoric. She
also holds the NCTE Award for Best Article on Philosophy or Theory of
Technical or Scientific Communication. When it comes to this aspect of
philosophy and scientific communication, her expertise exceeds that of most
folks on this list. She is a serious thinker and a skilled professional
designer.
You'll have to rise early in the day if you want to catch Susan Hagan
napping. In this case, your corrections are incorrect.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214
6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|