More on the intersection of rhetoric and skeptical activism (the first in a series)
TAM is less than three weeks away. Yay! I’m going to be on the Skepticism and the Humanities panel, and I’m very excited about that. To prepare for the panel, I’ve been reading, thinking, and writing about the intersection of rhetoric and skeptical activism, the topic that I spoke about at SkeptiCamp Denver in May. I love this topic and find it to be very interesting and exciting, both because it is a valuable tool and technique for skeptical activists, and because it allows me to use my knowledge of and experience in my academic field to contribute to a movement that I’m passionate about.
Over the next few weeks, I plan to write a series of brief blog posts on this topic. Because this is an introductory post, I won’t go into great detail here. However, in future posts, I will elaborate much more on various aspects of this topic, including context, goals/objectives, audience, clear and precise communication, logos/pathos/ethos, and the principle of charity.
Onward to the post!:
“Teach how to think, not what to think”. This phrase has become somewhat cliched, but that doesn’t detract from its truth or importance. My experience with teaching and thinking about various pedagogical practices and my research on the topic has led me to believe that teaching how to think, not what to think, is not only a highly effective pedagogical technique, but also one that is, at least to a certain extent, an ethical imperative.
However, despite the fact that my thoughts on the intersection of pragmatic rhetoric and skeptical activism are informed by my teaching philosophy and classroom experience, a classroom setting is just one of many contexts in which pragmatic rhetoric both can and should be utilized. Accordingly, when discussing this topic, I use the word “teach” to refer not only to classroom teaching, but also to any situation or context in which we, as idealistic and active skeptics, have the opportunity to use applied skepticism to inform an audience. Ultimately, these techniques can be put to effective use in any context (a conference, a classroom, a group discussion, a blog, etc.) and with any audience.
But, of course, informing is not the same as persuading. So how does rhetoric, a type of persuasion, fit into this particular discussion?
That’s a tricky question. I’d argue that, although informing and teaching is often accomplished without the use of any rhetorical techniques, rhetoric both underlies and shapes the informing that we engage in as active skeptics.
In the context of skepticism, informing and persuading are often intertwined. As active skeptics, we’re not just informing: we’re also encouraging our audience (of whatever sort) to think critically, to evaluate and examine the legitimacy, quality, and accuracy of the evidence and information with which they are presented, and to make decisions that are based upon accurate and trustworthy evidence. Informing is definitely a vital part of active skepticism, but it’s not enough. In addition to informing, we must also explain why the information is useful and accurate, how its accuracy and legitimacy were determined, and why it deserves to be taken into consideration when making decisions. It’s our job to “teach how to think, not what to think”, and rhetoric is one of the most useful tools that we can draw upon as we attempt to not just inform, but to also explain these “how”s and “why”s.
Unfortunately, “rhetoric” is sometimes perceived as a “dirty word”, so to speak. It’s viewed as sophistry and/or as a technique that prioritizes style over substance. In a similar vein, rhetoric is often thought of as something best left to debate clubs or to contentious individuals who enjoy argument for argument’s sake and who will do whatever it takes to “defeat” their “opponent”.
And rhetoric indeed can be all of those things. But that’s not all that it is. There’s another side to rhetoric, one that is pragmatic, practical, useful, one that anyone can use to further their ideals and to effect change in the world, one that is very relevant to skepticism. If you consider yourself to be a skeptical activist, then you almost certainly are, in one way or another, an idealist. You care. You’re passionate. You want to promote critical thinking and evidence-based decision making. You want to change things for the better. However, idealism and passion alone aren’t enough. If we want our activism to make a real difference in the real world, we must also have pragmatic and relevant skills, tools, and techniques at our disposal. And rhetoric, when utilized effectively, is one of the most useful tools available to the skeptical activist.
Accordingly, I want to expand the definition of rhetoric, to “take it back”, to propose the idea that we, as idealistic skeptics, should think of rhetoric as an important part of our “skeptic toolkit”. Rhetoric is a tool that every skeptical activist can and should possess. It’s is a form of “applied skepticism”. It’s a powerful, useful, and relevant tool for those of us who are more interested in communicating effectively and in “teaching how to think, not what to think” than in “defeating” an “opponent”. Rhetoric belongs not only to the debaters and the fighters, but also to those of us who are interested in promoting critical thinking, evidence-based decision making, and skeptical inquiry.
To be continued.