Presentation on theme: "George Campbell Ch. V “The Doctrine of Evidence” Fr. The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776)"— Presentation transcript:
George Campbell Ch. V “The Doctrine of Evidence” Fr. The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776)
Logical Truth Formed between the union of what we think and what we know from experience Happens in one of two ways (results from one of two evidences): – Immediately (Intuitive Evidence) Axioms, consciousness, common sense – With reason (Deductive Evidence) Scientific, experiential
Intuitive Evidence Logical because of consistencies with previous knowledge Recognized immediately – Axioms (intellection / understanding) – universal principles based upon abstracts as soon as they are understood, they are always intuitive (which is why they are instinctual even though learned)
Intuitive Evidence (cont) – Consciousness (Physical) Feelings Senses of the mind Our certainty in our senses as a way to receive the world Determined through perception
Intuitive Evidence (cont) – Common Sense (Moral) Original knowledge, but developed through memory Everyone has, but to differing degrees Similar to mathematical axioms, but there is a relational, cause / effect, element that isn’t present with axioms
Deductive Evidence Logical because reasoned, determined through comparing ideas – Scientific (demonstrative) Scientific relationships Simple / linear Built on intellection / axioms Authoritative Concrete / Absolute
Deductive Evidence (cont) – Experiential (moral): activates experience (sense + memory) Recognizing connections Decisions to be made Built on consciousness with common sense Important Changeable
Memory Campbell sees experiential / moral evidence as the most important because it unites sense and memory Senses: perceptions from facts / truths Memory: storehouse of knowledge
Points for Further Consideration Why is this called the doctrine of evidence? In communication, what is the difference between evidence and memory? Is evidence valid if it is based in fear? Emotion? Subliminal messaging? Ideas contrary to science? Is there a place for moral evidence if the goal is to inform? How much is what one is willing to accept as evidence dependent upon what one thinks / believes?
Works Cited Campbell, George. “Chapter V.” The Philosophy of Rhetoric. 1776. Internet Archive. Funk and Wagnall. 1911. 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.