Empirical Diversity, Interdependence, and the Problem of Rhetorical Invention and Judgment: The Case of Wife Abuse Facts

Abstract

facts of wife abuse and how best to attain them. This debate occurs under circumstances of "empirical diversity" that involve researchers who investigate wife abuse with different methods and adduce a range of often seemingly incompatible facts. Consequently, disputants confront a special pluralistic version of the ancient rhetorical problem of invention and judgment: How can one establish common grounds for creation and evaluation of arguments about facts in the presence of empirical diversity? This essay conducts a topical analysis of Straus's arguments, which reveals two distinct approaches to this problem. One approach locates adjudicating standards in values and assumptions rooted deeply within Straus's preferred orientation toward the issues. Arguments premised on that kind of standard polarize rhetorical judgment under empirically diverse circumstances. The other approach locates standards in practical points of interdependence among disputants. Arguments premised on the interdependence topos open possibilities for more constructive deliberation among those who argue for seemingly incompatible facts. The essay shows that topical analysis of the 'ksrats" of invention and judgment affords opportunities for practical intervention in controversies about science.