When i went to the website I dinked around and came across this video that someone posted in response to the article Finding Design in Nature. The video coincides with the point made from Robin's and Herndl's essay. They talk about how the rhetoric of such works from anti-environmentalists are set out to almost "fool" those that are debating because in reality, the rhetoric of such work is "seeking only to please and affirm the beliefs of a group already sure of its position." Writers such as those found in the Discovery Institute and the actors portrayed in Mr. Deity are not writing to change the minds of those who oppose them. They on the other hand are only there to get highly acclaimed professionals, and highly scholarly linguists to use such language and ideals to boast their skills all in the favor of the argued viewpoint. In doing so will only therefore let the "speaker build a social link to the disenfranchised because he recognizes and attributes values to their habitus." In the video I found, it right from the start enters the scene with Mr. Deity and a science expert where Mr. Deity is trying to pronounce a very complicated and complex scientific term, which ultimately puts the affect onto the audience that the "writers" have knowledge and are therefore reliable and "truthful." But the connection comes when in fact the presentation of the argument is never going to change the mind of the opposer. A spiritual leader and firm believer in God is not going to read the article on The Design in Nature or watch Mr. Deity and suddenly change all that he once thought about God and decide to now be an avid atheist and evolutionist. However, a newly acclaimed atheist, and anthropology major grad-student may watch this video and find it not only hilarious, but support his owns beliefs just in a comical way. So writings such as these are simply there to add to the effect of those who read them and agree. Nothing more. And everyone can agree with that, which ultimately makes them "truthful."
I find this a very good and to the point description behind the rhetoric of the Discovery institute and what Brown and Herdnl are speaking about. I find it interesting that in order to believe their own "truths" they must first go around the truth a little bit. In effect bending it to match their beliefs. I find it rather odd that people can see themselves as speaking the truth when they do this.
ReplyDelete