Robert L. Scott's Three Meanings Of Epistemic Rhetoric

In 1967, Robert L. Scott started a seminal debate within the rhetoric community with his essay, “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic.” His argument – rhetoric is epistemic - has been analyzed and/or criticized by many scholars. Scott himself followed up in 1976 with an article titled, “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later” in order to address some of these concerns, and add to his original thoughts. Despite this follow-up, authors still continue criticize and defend his work. This essay will focus on three responses in particular, each focusing on a different aspect of Scott’s argument, in order to prove that rhetoric is in fact epistemic. First, Brumett’s, Three Meanings of Epistemic Rhetoric (1979) will examine three possible meanings
In this essay, Scott attempts to address three questions: “Is there one way of knowing or many? What sort of knowing does rhetoric strive to achieve? Is rhetorical relativism vicious?” (1976, 259). He states that there are many ways of knowing, emphasizing the pluralistic nature of ‘ways of knowing.’ He believes that rhetoric should strive to achieve an actuality, or an agreed social construction (later it will become apparent that this facet of his argument is the one sparking the most debate). Finally, he attempts to dispel the positivist argument against him, that rhetorical relativism is vicious. This leads to some deeper discussion on the nature of subjective knowledge, of which his defining argument seems to
The first is what is considered the positivist view, which is essentially that there is a truth out there, and that people are either right or wrong about what they think is true. He emphasizes that rhetoric is the path to reaching that truth. The second is the classic interpretive approach, that different groups have different realities, and there knowledge within them. This means that within a group, someone can be wrong, although that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong in all groups. Finally, he addresses the view that the world is much too complicated for humans to understand, which is evidenced by our need to define and label