Today in rhetoric: Logos!

Logos is an appeal to reason. Aristotle spends a lot of time talking through what are called syllogisms and enthymemes. A syllogism is a kind of deductive reasoning and is far more “formal” than we normally use in everyday persuasion.

Syllogism: All men are mortal (major premise), Socrates is a man (minor premise), therefore Socrates is mortal (conclusion). Enthymeme: The glove doesn’t fit (major premise), so you must acquit (conclusion). The audience fills in the minor premise.

The audience fills in the minor premise. In this case, Johnny Cochran hoped the jury would fill in “the killer had to have been wearing that glove at the time of the murder.”

Because we’re dealing with people who are exposed to considerable disinformation (studies reveal more than 50% of the handles advocating opening up are bots), you may have to persuade syllogistically rather than enthymematically—leave nothing to the imagination.

I want to tell you a little about how research works. No one’s career is made by continuing to find exactly the same thing that everyone else has found.But no one is going to try to publish something novel if it isn’t coherent. So consensus means strong validity and reliability.

If you disagree with consensus, you’ve not stumbled upon a vast conspiracy that only you and your people can know. There are problems with your claim, and you are shopping for a conclusion rather than doing actual research. RESEARCH DOES NOT START WITH A CONCLUSION.

Logos tl;dr:
1.We persuade using enthymemes. We rely on the audience to fill in the right minor premise. It may be that some are incapable of that inference, and you should move to persuading through syllogism where you spell the whole thing out.

2. Avoid logical fallacies. If you’re particularly interested in this, check out Jennifer Mercieca’s book, “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump.” Logical fallacies destroy your credibility. You aren’t operating in good faith.

3. Pull the thread all the way through. Think through the entailments or potential outcomes of your position. Do this in advance. If you say you want to open up but also say you're against all protocols to do so, you're not pulling the thread all the way.

4. Consider in advance what might be the response to your claims—good persuaders know to anticipate moves others might make and to be ready for them. For instance, if you know people making the “open up” claim, you know they are going to tell you that economic damage

is just as bad if not worse as damage from a virus that has, thus far, killed 100,000 Americans in 2 months. Acknowledge the pain people feel, and then start asking questions—how should we open back up? What kinds of benchmarks are important?

What have you seen or read that others have done that has been successful? And then of course WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THOSE THINGS? In other words, force your interlocutor to pull their thread all the way through.

5. Consider that logic butts up against feelings, and that you may be dealing with an interlocutor who conflates their feelings about COVID 19 with logic about it. That’s a challenging knot. When someone tells you they want to see everything reopened,

what they are really telling you is that they FEEL SHITTY. No one has their usual distractions from the problems in their lives and we don’t have distractions from our feelings. We don’t have outlets. Some people struggle to manage their feelings.

A lot of talk about COVID 19 is then really illogical because it’s a whole heap of feels. Acknowledge those feelings. Shift to proactive--will they take seriously/ advocate protocols to gain a little more “freedom”? If they are not, see questions in 4. Ask. Ask again.

6. Do not conclusion shop your shit hypothesis. If you can’t find evidence from actual experts in relevant fields that is published in a peer-reviewed outlet (includes print journalism) for your claim, the problem is with your claim.

If your favorite talk radio host’s plan is so totally dope, why doesn't it cite experts in virology, epidemiology, or public health. Again, because something appeals to you does not make it valid. You’re not communicating ethically if you claim otherwise.

Thanks for tuning in! If you’re interested in more resources in rhetoric, please don’t hesitate to reach out. If you’re tired of listening to me, I can recommend all kinds of smart others.

@threader_app compile