Thursday, February 1, 2024

Rhetorical Principles and Methods

 Copyright by Gary L. Pullman

Image by Nile from Pixabay

Image by Nile from Pixabay


Over the centuries, philosophers, especially rhetoricians, including Aristotle, Kenneth Burke, Marshall McLuhan, and Bertrand Russell, among others, have isolated the subjects of human discourse and the principles and techniques of rhetoric, or the art of effective speaking and writing.

In effect, these subjects, principles, and techniques form a model of the way that we, as human beings, see, or interpret, and understand the world and enable us to create a corresponding model of reality while permitting us to modify this model as we learn and understand more and to communicate this continually updated paradigm of reality, just as it lets us comment upon it and our place within the bigger scheme of things, through the arts and sciences as well as ordinary, daily discussions and arguments.

According to Aristotle, everything that can be written or spoken about deals with one of these questions:


  • Who?
  • What?
  • When?
  • Where?
  • How?
  • Why?

To which I add one other:


  • How many? or How much?

These questions are related to


  • Who?: agent or agency (doer)
  • What?: circumstance, event, idea, incident, feeling, object, situation
  • When?: moment, era, age
  • Where: place
  • How?: means, method, process, technique
  • Why?: cause, motive, reason, purpose
  • How many? (quantity in number) or How much? (quantity in volume)


In drama and narrative diction, these questions relate to


  • Who?: character
  • What: situation
  • When?: setting
  • Where?: setting
  • How?: various (e. g., genre, dramatic or technique)
  • Why?: motive
  • How many? or How much?: various (e. g., word count, number of acts or chapters, number of characters, number of subplots)


What can be said or written almost always addresses one of these rhetorical areas:


  • Analysis: breaking a whole [e. g., a subject] into its pieces to understand how each piece is related to other pieces and to the whole)
  • Argumentation: providing current, reliable, relevant, authoritative, accurate, and purposeful evidence to support a specific claim; in addition, Aristotle states that persuasive argumentation involves three types of appeal: rational (logos), emotional (pathos), and ethical (ethos)
  • Causal Analysis: analyzing and presenting the cause or causes that produce an effect or effects; sometimes, the reverse occurs, with the identification of one or more effects followed by the identification and explanation of its or their cause or causes
  • Classification: grouping items according to criteria such as common and distinguishing attributes or characteristics; classification is almost always used with division
  • Comparison: grouping and considering the similarities between two items; comparison is almost always used with contrast
  • Contrast: grouping and considering the differences between two items; contrast is almost always used with comparison
  • Definition: distinguishing a member of a group of similar members from the others on the group by identifying the differences between the one and the others: A planet is a heavenly body (class) that orbits a star and is big enough to have enough gravity to force a spherical shape and clear away objects of a similar size near its orbit (differences).
  • Description: explaining the appearance of an item
  • Division: separating a whole into parts or groups (e. g,, a thesis into points, an essay into paragraphs, an argument into claim and evidence)
  • Exemplification: using examples (specific instances or cases) to represent a whole or to indicate a pattern: “toss” is an example of an action verb; the My Lai massacre is an example of a war crime
  • Narration: relating, recalling, or reciting, usually chronologically, the incidents or events that, together, convey a story
  • Process analysis: identifying and explaining the specific steps to be performed in a prescribed manner in order to accomplish a particular result; sometimes, the analysis includes cautionary statements or warnings, as necessary


The type of essay (e. g., analysis, comparison-contrast, exemplification, process analysis, etc.) often determines both the essay's structure and the types of evidence.

As taught in colleges and universities, argumentative writing is divided into


  • an introductory paragraph
  • that ends with a thesis sentence, or controversial (arguable) claim, divided into a number of points,
  • a number of body paragraphs—one or more for each point in the thesis—each of which is introduced by a topic sentence that identifies the point in the thesis about which the paragraph or section or related paragraphs provides supporting evidence or refutes an opposing argument;
  • a concluding paragraph


In constructing, revising, analyzing, or refuting an argument, various types of evidence must be provided. Some types are “stronger,” or more convincing, than other types. On general, these are regarded as strongest to weakest (most convincing to least convincing):


  1. Verified or established causal (cause-and-effect) evidence (STRONGEST)
  2. Consensus of expert opinion
  3. Expert opinion
  4. Facts (these include, but are not limited to, physical evidence, such as hair or fibers found at crime scenes, or biological evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA)
  5. Reasons
  6. Anecdotal evidence (eye-witness evidence, testimonial evidence, or evidence based on personal experience) (WEAKEST)


These questions can also help evaluate arguments:


  • Who is making the claim? (A scientist, an engineer, another expert, a man with a topknot who is wearing a white tank top?)
  • What is the claim (and its related points, or parts)?
  • When was the claim made? (Is it new, old, or between? How long has it been investigated?)
  • Where was the claim made? (At a university? In a scientific laboratory? In a national newspaper? Somewhere abroad? In the basement of the claimant's parents' home?)
  • How was the claim developed? (Part by part, over a period of time, by various people with little or no expertise, experience, or credibility? As a result of the scientific method? By credible people who have investigated the claim and its parts, or points? By innuendo or by verifiable facts?)
  • Why is the claim being made? (What, if anything, does the claimant have to gain by making the claim? Money? Followers? Political advantage? Attention?)
  • How many people believe the claim? How many have a solid basis for believing it?


By learning how to construct arguments, people also learn how to refute arguments:


  1. Identify the thesis, or claim. (The thesis may be implicit, rather than explicitly stated, although, in formal arguments, it is almost always explicitly stated).
  2. Identify the points, or parts, of the thesis. (A thesis, especially for a complex argument, is likely to consist of or involve several related points.)
  3. Examine each type of evidence: is it based on a verified or established cause? A consensus of expert opinion? An expert's opinion? Facts? Reasons? Eye-witness evidence, testimonial evidence, or evidence based on personal experience? Consider the evidence as strong or weak, accordingly.
  4. Research the subject matter if it is unfamiliar to you so that you can gain enough knowledge to determine the validity of claims about the topic. What are recognized, undisputed facts?
  5. Ask questions: What background (experience) does the person making the claims have? Does he or she have any relevant knowledge and expertise? If so, how much? What do the majority of experts say about the topic and the claims that are being made about it?
  6. What is the person's purpose? To inform? To entertain? To persuade? To sell something? To gain some sort of personal benefit?
  7. What sources does the person use? Scientific? Academic? Government? Legal? Are the sources authoritative? Is the person a recognized authority? (Ray Bradbury did not have a degree in science, nor was he an amateur scientist, but he was a recognized science fiction writer and could have taught a college course in writing science fiction [or science fantasy]. However, he was by no means an expert in any of the sciences.)
  8. Do the sources pass the “CRAPP” test? Are they Current? Relevant? Authoritative? Accurate? What is their Purpose?
  9. How likely is the possibility (if there is a possibility) of the claim or its associated applications or evidence? Here is an example: Bigfoot exists (claim). He's been seen—several times. He's been photographed! His footprints have been seen—and collected. His fur has been seen—and collected. Eyewitnesses have reported encounters with him—and lived to tell the tale! Footprints and photographs are easily faked. The FBI lab identified alleged Bigfoot fur and skin as those of a deer. Eyewitness testimony (a type of anecdotal evidence) is subject to misinterpretation, faulty memory, distortion, exaggeration, confusion, bias, faulty perception, delusion, and, of course, outright lying. In addition, as geologist and natural science professor Mark Wilson observes, no “biological evidence” has ever been found or authenticated, “no bodies, bones, skin, hairs or DNA.”


Here are a few YouTube videos that refute or debunk some current conspiracy theories:


Moon landing conspiracy
Collapse of World Trade Center Towers
Math: Conspiracy Theories Are Likely to Fail
Subway Tuna Conspiracy
COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Paranormal vs. Supernatural: What’s the Diff?

Copyright 2009 by Gary L. Pullman

Sometimes, in demonstrating how to brainstorm about an essay topic, selecting horror movies, I ask students to name the titles of as many such movies as spring to mind (seldom a difficult feat for them, as the genre remains quite popular among young adults). Then, I ask them to identify the monster, or threat--the antagonist, to use the proper terminology--that appears in each of the films they have named. Again, this is usually a quick and easy task. Finally, I ask them to group the films’ adversaries into one of three possible categories: natural, paranormal, or supernatural. This is where the fun begins.

It’s a simple enough matter, usually, to identify the threats which fall under the “natural” label, especially after I supply my students with the scientific definition of “nature”: everything that exists as either matter or energy (which are, of course, the same thing, in different forms--in other words, the universe itself. The supernatural is anything which falls outside, or is beyond, the universe: God, angels, demons, and the like, if they exist. Mad scientists, mutant cannibals (and just plain cannibals), serial killers, and such are examples of natural threats. So far, so simple.

What about borderline creatures, though? Are vampires, werewolves, and zombies, for example, natural or supernatural? And what about Freddy Krueger? In fact, what does the word “paranormal” mean, anyway? If the universe is nature and anything outside or beyond the universe is supernatural, where does the paranormal fit into the scheme of things?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “paranormal,” formed of the prefix “para,” meaning alongside, and “normal,” meaning “conforming to common standards, usual,” was coined in 1920. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “paranormal” to mean “beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation.” In other words, the paranormal is not supernatural--it is not outside or beyond the universe; it is natural, but, at the present, at least, inexplicable, which is to say that science cannot yet explain its nature. The same dictionary offers, as examples of paranormal phenomena, telepathy and “a medium’s paranormal powers.”

Wikipedia offers a few other examples of such phenomena or of paranormal sciences, including the percentages of the American population which, according to a Gallup poll, believes in each phenomenon, shown here in parentheses: psychic or spiritual healing (54), extrasensory perception (ESP) (50), ghosts (42), demons (41), extraterrestrials (33), clairvoyance and prophecy (32), communication with the dead (28), astrology (28), witchcraft (26), reincarnation (25), and channeling (15); 36 percent believe in telepathy.

As can be seen from this list, which includes demons, ghosts, and witches along with psychics and extraterrestrials, there is a confusion as to which phenomena and which individuals belong to the paranormal and which belong to the supernatural categories. This confusion, I believe, results from the scientism of our age, which makes it fashionable for people who fancy themselves intelligent and educated to dismiss whatever cannot be explained scientifically or, if such phenomena cannot be entirely rejected, to classify them as as-yet inexplicable natural phenomena. That way, the existence of a supernatural realm need not be admitted or even entertained. Scientists tend to be materialists, believing that the real consists only of the twofold unity of matter and energy, not dualists who believe that there is both the material (matter and energy) and the spiritual, or supernatural. If so, everything that was once regarded as having been supernatural will be regarded (if it cannot be dismissed) as paranormal and, maybe, if and when it is explained by science, as natural. Indeed, Sigmund Freud sought to explain even God as but a natural--and in Freud’s opinion, an obsolete--phenomenon.

Meanwhile, among skeptics, there is an ongoing campaign to eliminate the paranormal by explaining them as products of ignorance, misunderstanding, or deceit. Ridicule is also a tactic that skeptics sometimes employ in this campaign. For example, The Skeptics’ Dictionary contends that the perception of some “events” as being of a paranormal nature may be attributed to “ignorance or magical thinking.” The dictionary is equally suspicious of each individual phenomenon or “paranormal science” as well. Concerning psychics’ alleged ability to discern future events, for example, The Skeptic’s Dictionary quotes Jay Leno (“How come you never see a headline like 'Psychic Wins Lottery'?”), following with a number of similar observations:

Psychics don't rely on psychics to warn them of impending disasters. Psychics don't predict their own deaths or diseases. They go to the dentist like the rest of us. They're as surprised and disturbed as the rest of us when they have to call a plumber or an electrician to fix some defect at home. Their planes are delayed without their being able to anticipate the delays. If they want to know something about Abraham Lincoln, they go to the library; they don't try to talk to Abe's spirit. In short, psychics live by the known laws of nature except when they are playing the psychic game with people.
In An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, James Randi, a magician who exercises a skeptical attitude toward all things alleged to be paranormal or supernatural, takes issue with the notion of such phenomena as well, often employing the same arguments and rhetorical strategies as The Skeptic’s Dictionary.

In short, the difference between the paranormal and the supernatural lies in whether one is a materialist, believing in only the existence of matter and energy, or a dualist, believing in the existence of both matter and energy and spirit. If one maintains a belief in the reality of the spiritual, he or she will classify such entities as angels, demons, ghosts, gods, vampires, and other threats of a spiritual nature as supernatural, rather than paranormal, phenomena. He or she may also include witches (because, although they are human, they are empowered by the devil, who is himself a supernatural entity) and other natural threats that are energized, so to speak, by a power that transcends nature and is, as such, outside or beyond the universe. Otherwise, one is likely to reject the supernatural as a category altogether, identifying every inexplicable phenomenon as paranormal, whether it is dark matter or a teenage werewolf. Indeed, some scientists dedicate at least part of their time to debunking allegedly paranormal phenomena, explaining what natural conditions or processes may explain them, as the author of The Serpent and the Rainbow explains the creation of zombies by voodoo priests.

Based upon my recent reading of Tzvetan Todorov's The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to the Fantastic, I add the following addendum to this essay.

According to Todorov:

The fantastic. . . lasts only as long as a certain hesitation [in deciding] whether or not what they [the reader and the protagonist] perceive derives from "reality" as it exists in the common opinion. . . . If he [the reader] decides that the laws of reality remain intact and permit an explanation of the phenomena described, we can say that the work belongs to the another genre [than the fantastic]: the uncanny. If, on the contrary, he decides that new laws of nature must be entertained to account for the phenomena, we enter the genre of the marvelous (The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre, 41).
Todorov further differentiates these two categories by characterizing the uncanny as “the supernatural explained” and the marvelous as “the supernatural accepted” (41-42).

Interestingly, the prejudice against even the possibility of the supernatural’s existence which is implicit in the designation of natural versus paranormal phenomena, which excludes any consideration of the supernatural, suggests that there are no marvelous phenomena; instead, there can be only the uncanny. Consequently, for those who subscribe to this view, the fantastic itself no longer exists in this scheme, for the fantastic depends, as Todorov points out, upon the tension of indecision concerning to which category an incident belongs, the natural or the supernatural. The paranormal is understood, by those who posit it, in lieu of the supernatural, as the natural as yet unexplained.

And now, back to a fate worse than death: grading students’ papers.

My Cup of Blood

Anyone who becomes an aficionado of anything tends, eventually, to develop criteria for elements or features of the person, place, or thing of whom or which he or she has become enamored. Horror fiction--admittedly not everyone’s cuppa blood--is no different (okay, maybe it’s a little different): it, too, appeals to different fans, each for reasons of his or her own. Of course, in general, book reviews, the flyleaves of novels, and movie trailers suggest what many, maybe even most, readers of a particular type of fiction enjoy, but, right here, right now, I’m talking more specifically--one might say, even more eccentrically. In other words, I’m talking what I happen to like, without assuming (assuming makes an “ass” of “u” and “me”) that you also like the same. It’s entirely possible that you will; on the other hand, it’s entirely likely that you won’t.

Anyway, this is what I happen to like in horror fiction:

Small-town settings in which I get to know the townspeople, both the good, the bad, and the ugly. For this reason alone, I’m a sucker for most of Stephen King’s novels. Most of them, from 'Salem's Lot to Under the Dome, are set in small towns that are peopled by the good, the bad, and the ugly. Part of the appeal here, granted, is the sense of community that such settings entail.

Isolated settings, such as caves, desert wastelands, islands, mountaintops, space, swamps, where characters are cut off from civilization and culture and must survive and thrive or die on their own, without assistance, by their wits and other personal resources. Many are the examples of such novels and screenplays, but Alien, The Shining, The Descent, Desperation, and The Island of Dr. Moreau, are some of the ones that come readily to mind.

Total institutions as settings. Camps, hospitals, military installations, nursing homes, prisons, resorts, spaceships, and other worlds unto themselves are examples of such settings, and Sleepaway Camp, Coma, The Green Mile, and Aliens are some of the novels or films that take place in such settings.

Anecdotal scenes--in other words, short scenes that showcase a character--usually, an unusual, even eccentric, character. Both Dean Koontz and the dynamic duo, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, excel at this, so I keep reading their series (although Koontz’s canine companions frequently--indeed, almost always--annoy, as does his relentless optimism).

Atmosphere, mood, and tone. Here, King is king, but so is Bentley Little. In the use of description to terrorize and horrify, both are masters of the craft.

A bit of erotica (okay, okay, sex--are you satisfied?), often of the unusual variety. Sex sells, and, yes, sex whets my reader’s appetite. Bentley Little is the go-to guy for this spicy ingredient, although Koontz has done a bit of seasoning with this spice, too, in such novels as Lightning and Demon Seed (and, some say, Hung).

Believable characters. Stephen King, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, and Dan Simmons are great at creating characters that stick to readers’ ribs.

Innovation. Bram Stoker demonstrates it, especially in his short story “Dracula’s Guest,” as does H. P. Lovecraft, Edgar Allan Poe, Shirley Jackson, and a host of other, mostly classical, horror novelists and short story writers. For an example, check out my post on Stoker’s story, which is a real stoker, to be sure. Stephen King shows innovation, too, in ‘Salem’s Lot, The Shining, It, and other novels. One might even argue that Dean Koontz’s something-for-everyone, cross-genre writing is innovative; he seems to have been one of the first, if not the first, to pen such tales.

Technique. Check out Frank Peretti’s use of maps and his allusions to the senses in Monster; my post on this very topic is worth a look, if I do say so myself, which, of course, I do. Opening chapters that accomplish a multitude of narrative purposes (not usually all at once, but successively) are attractive, too, and Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child are as good as anyone, and better than many, at this art.

A connective universe--a mythos, if you will, such as both H. P. Lovecraft and Stephen King, and, to a lesser extent, Dean Koontz, Bentley Little, and even Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child have created through the use of recurring settings, characters, themes, and other elements of fiction.

A lack of pretentiousness. Dean Koontz has it, as do Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, Bentley Little, and (to some extent, although he has become condescending and self-indulgent of late, Stephen King); unfortunately, both Dan Simmons and Robert McCammon have become too self-important in their later works, Simmons almost to the point of becoming unreadable. Come on, people, you’re writing about monsters--you should be humble.

Longevity. Writers who have been around for a while usually get better, Stephen King, Dan Simmons, and Robert McCammon excepted.

Pacing. Neither too fast nor too slow. Dean Koontz is good, maybe the best, here, of contemporary horror writers.


Popular Posts