Scott, Robert. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic." Central States Speech Journal Feb 1967


















seminal work on rhetoric-as-epistemic
essay was the first to define rhetoric in terms of episteme
since Scott's initial presentation, the "rhetoric is epistemic" perspective has achieved an
elevated status within rhetorical studies
attempts to define "truth" in terms of certainty
defines epistemic rhetoric is terms of tolerance, will and responsibility
interesting to note that Scott wasn’t attempting to define a new rhetoric; in fact, his original
intention was to argue against professors of speech and communications who, attempting to
defend and update classical rhetoric, undermined the importance of rhetoric.
Since the publication of this essay, however, epistemic rhetoric has taken on a life of its own
and many theorists have used Scott's phrase as the base for their work
Concerned with the elitism embedded in the Platonic notion of rhetorically disseminated truth,
Scott argued that analytical arguments designed to "discover" truth rely on a sort of purposeful
ignorance of mutability, an error costly to their validity.
If change occurs over time, then even the simplest of syllogisms are called into question by
their context.
Given the degree of contingency within human interactions, rhetoric thus commands a central
role; rhetoric produces temporally constrained truths arising from "cooperative critical inquiry"
(135).
No longer playing simple handmaiden to the grand truth, rhetoric is charged instead with
"creating" multiple, situated truths.
For Scott, rhetoric is a "way of knowing" (138), a way of constructing one's understanding of
the real; in other words, we develop the very truths with which we interact.
uses Toulmin to make his case that truth is a construct and that the role of rhetoric is
to epistemic –it is a way of knowing—of constructing truth, of understanding and
communicating uncertainty.
discusses the difference between certainty and uncertainty as it applies to life and actions
argues that one can rarely if ever be certain—if one could then one would have to act on that
certainty for failure to act could only be explained "as a sign of momentary misunderstanding
or of a flawed intellect."
Since one can rarely be certain, one must act with responsibility: "To act with intentions for
good consequences, but to accept the responsibilities for all the consequences in so far as
they can be known is part of what being ethical means."
concludes that "at best (or least) truth must be seen as dual: the demands of the precepts one
adheres to and the demands of circumstances in which one must act."
Scott ends the article, "In human affairs, then, rhetoric, perceive in the frame herein discussed,
is a way of knowing; it is epistemic." Scott defines epistemology as knowledge. Rhetoric, in the
absence of certainty, is a way of knowing, so rhetoric, in Scott's view is epistemic.