The Rhetoric and the Renaissance 1400-

1
The Rhetoric and the Renaissance 1400-

• Italy--Machiavelli and Ramus
• Basically nothing new
• Reactions to Greeks and Romans either pro or con
• Machiavelli--political and applied Aristotle
• Ramus--philosophical and anti-Aristotle

2
Machiavelli

• To convey religiositybe generous my ranch as a
  park
• To convey compassionbe sensitive I know how
  you feel
• To demonstrate faithbe pure in speech and
  active family values
• To demonstrate sincerityremain strong public
  officials at funerals

3
More Machiavelli

• To demonstrate prudenceponder and reflect
  Let me think about that for moment
• Everyone sees who you appear to be, few sense
  who you really are. (Smith, p. 205)

4
Ramus

• Everything that Aristotle said is wrong
• Division of the Canon
• Inventio and dispositio only
• To this day a division in the academy because of
  his influence.
• A voiceless, objective, depersonalized, naked,
  natural way of speaking, mathematical (Smith, p.
  214)

5
In summary. . .

• Both religion and science the same mark on
  rhetoric There is little need for an art form
  that dealt with probabilities.
• Yet, ironically science deals with probabilities

6
The Formula

• Rhetoric
  Dialectic
• Enthymemes Induction Evidence
• Conclusions
  Generalization

7
Science and Communication

• Today scientists are like witch doctors of tribal
  myths
• Genetic determinism (physis) over culture (nomos)
• Yet, always probablities

8
Science and Probabilities

• Dialecticinduction
• Rhetoricexample
• Probabilities

9
Science, Probabilities (the curve)and
Communication

• How many sexes are their?
• What is intelligence?
• Others?
• What happens to the data 2 or 3 deviations from
  the mean?