In the section on maintaining the story I found the global warming example interesting, but also telling. In the example, conservative strategist Frank Luntz is quoted saying "the scientific debate is closing but it is not yet closed, [t]here is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science" (Rieke et al., 272). This statement constitutes an admission, a defense, and a reveal of the strategy of some conservative politics. This quote is from 2003, so it is old, but it is interesting that he could say that there is any scientific debate about climate change. There was no debate; the consensus existed then as it does now. The phrase "challenge the science" is one of the most backwards things I have ever read. A person with no experience can only pose a threat to science by maintaining their position in spite of facts. With no firm basis in facts, it seems that one can still maintain their argument by simply repeating themselves. Effectively, this tactic creates a debate and a sense of uncertainty out of thin air.
Similarly, taking advantage of uncertainty (no matter how ridiculous) seems to be the principle applied to Hillary's emails. Before the 2016 election and even up to the present Donald Trump, Fox News, and other strongly conservative media figures have continuously bombarded the American people with the idea that we cannot know whether Hillary committed a crime. Even after a thorough investigation which produced no charges and no unanswered questions, the idea that something was missed or hidden still exists. I believe that this argumentative tactic functions as both a distraction to people and as a way of undermining people's belief in the democratic party. By keeping this bogus story in the public eye, uncertainty is maintained despite contradiction with the facts.
Similarly, taking advantage of uncertainty (no matter how ridiculous) seems to be the principle applied to Hillary's emails. Before the 2016 election and even up to the present Donald Trump, Fox News, and other strongly conservative media figures have continuously bombarded the American people with the idea that we cannot know whether Hillary committed a crime. Even after a thorough investigation which produced no charges and no unanswered questions, the idea that something was missed or hidden still exists. I believe that this argumentative tactic functions as both a distraction to people and as a way of undermining people's belief in the democratic party. By keeping this bogus story in the public eye, uncertainty is maintained despite contradiction with the facts.
I like what part of Chapter 16 you chose to write your blog post about. I think that the global warming debate and the politics that play into it are very interesting. Like you said Frank Luntz said there was still an opportunity to challenge science. Which as you point out is a bunk argument. However, in the context of politics the argument is being made and is convincing to some people. As you say, this example is people taking advantage of the slight uncertainty that they think exists in the argument. The same type of thing was applied to Hillary Clinton’s email crisis as you also point out. The way that argumentation in politics takes advantage of the uncertainty is interesting. I quite like what you wrote and I do agree with a lot of it. Very intelligent writing.
ReplyDelete