# Knowledge and reliability are forms of persuasion. They’re part of a subset within which the whole set is rhetoric (ancient sense of the word). Think about what is the criteria behind what you consider knowledge. Think about what is the criteria behind what you consider reliability. What makes them effective and/or efficient persuasive tools?

Knowledge and reliability are forms of persuasion. They’re part of a subset within which the whole set is rhetoric (ancient sense of the word).

Think about what is the criteria behind what you consider knowledge.
Think about what is the criteria behind what you consider reliability.

What makes them effective and/or efficient persuasive tools?

==

I have a response but occupied IRL – but I will have a response later when I’m back. It’s a different way of categorizing the levels and it makes sense… but there’s a 7th grader needing help with algebra which can take some time…

Helped with the algebra then I decided (for some reason) to watch bits of Trump President’s rally thing.

Ok, let’s see: Consider what’s the purpose of rhetoric? To convince. What’s the purpose of something being correct? To convince. If it’s correct, you believe it’s correct. Sounds redundant. But it’s not.

Being correct is a better (perhaps the best) form of rhetoric.

Why do people stick with what’s correct? Because eventually, what’s correct will win people over. It’s why we spent time and effort finding correct answers to things.

Who is the first person being correct convinces? Yourself.

It’s not a ‘mere subset’. I just see it as a subset. I like it the best of course.

==

By putting all of them together into the same bucket of Rhetoric, it captures all of the forms of convincing that people actually use, no matter what kind it is.

If you are in a courtroom, correct isn’t always the best way to convince.
If you are in a media situation, correct isn’t always the best way to convince.
Even in the sciences being correct isn’t always the best way to convince. [for example, you may
====
Well, it’s pragmatism. In school, you’re asked to show your work. You can produce all correct answers but if you don’t show your work, you can get a zero because (show your work) in parenthesis turns out to be more important than giving the correct answers in some cases.

This is true not only in school but in other parts of life.

Reasoning well can involve more than boolean logic too.

You can something plausible by setting up a thought experiment. “What if?” Then you link the “what if?” to the situation at hand. With those two together, a what if, linked up to the facts you have, you can present a convincing case. It may be incorrect, but if it’s enough to convince, it’s effective.

I prefer correctness most of all. I don’t care for the other forms of rhetoric. But I have to place correctness along with the rest because its used for the same purpose.

====
each aspect of an investigation though are different levels of convincing. “Is this a correct support?” “I believe it is”. “Why?” and you investigate until you are convinced it is correct support for a larger point.

I know it sounds strange seeing it this way. But consider how many times people fight over correctness? What tools do they use?

I’d go so far as to say a computer is a specialized rhetorical device. It works very very well in a very specific fashion that we have learned to generally trust as being correct.

Logic is a very specialized rhetorical tool.

All of these methods and technologies are tools we’ve learned to trust over time, just as one might trust a scale with weights the more it gets used.

A scale with weights is a rhetorical device. You see the results and you believe them because you are persuaded, whether through repeated experience or reputation or learning that it gives correct answers.

Does it elevate correctness to a level above rhetoric? I don’t think it does, rather I believe it is a specialized form of rhetoric.

====
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]