Abstract
This
paper attempts to draw correlations between the rhetoric of Ramus, Bacon, and some
of the cultural issues our nation faces today. Science has come to dominate
public policy discourse and the governing of our nation. Decisions are being
made that affect the lives of all Americans. These decisions are often made
based on scientific inquiry derived from the knowledge of corruptible men, and often,
flawed scientific studies. Science itself, has become Godless as those pushing
its theories seem to be defining truth on their own terms while ignoring the
moral and ethical implications of doing so. This paper does not attempt to make
the claim that the rhetoric of Ramus or Bacon is responsible for anything, only
that ideas have consequences and that there are interesting correlations. Taking
the writing to learn approach, this writer focused on what captured his
interest, noting the similarities between the rhetoric, modern sciences like
psychology, and philosophies like humanism.
Introduction
We
are living in an interesting time. A time where one could argue the
consequences of ideas are catching up to us. America ̶ once thought of as a
Christian nation is spiraling out of control in a cesspool of twisted logic
that has turned society on its head, and people not knowing which direction to
turn. A belief that our nation is founded on racist principles, that man is an animal
and that gender is a fluid concept has taken over scientific inquiry. The
results are disastrous as riots, violence and general feeling the nation is losing
its principles is becoming the new normal. How did we get to this point?
Francis
Bacon argued that developing a reliance on man’s reasoning could have
consequences (Bizzell &
Herzberg, 737). In a system he developed called the Idol
System (Bizzell & Herzberg, 737), he focused on
the consequences of false ideas that result from relying on man’s understanding,
and the classifications of philosophical systems of thought. While he warns
that man’s reasoning can lead to warped views of reality, his development of
such systems seems to rely on his own ideas opposed to God’s wisdom. Peter
Ramus seemed to believe that men had an inherent ability to reason (Bizzell
& Herzberg, 675) and vehemently opposed Quintilian’s assertion that a moral,
philosophical outlook was necessary in developing rhetorical discourse (Bizzell
& Herzberg, 678). Ramus allegedly,
according to Bizzell & Herzberg (676), was attracted to Protestant
Christianity as it emphasized a personal relationship with Christ. This,
however, contradicts the assertion that he denies the need of a moral doctrine
in rhetoric.
To what degree has the ideas of men in pursuit
of their own reason contributed to the problems we face today? Are we living in
the consequence of rejecting God’s wisdom in favor of man’s own understanding
based on his own pursuits of knowledge and science?
Rhetoric
of Science
Rhetoric
can be defined as a means of developing reasoned arguments, through the written
word, for the purpose of persuading others to accept a certain viewpoint (Libguides.berry.edu).
The art of rhetoric was once thought to
be a study of culture ̶ a reflection of society and human nature (Gaonkar, 1993). Later, rhetoric turned towards the
interpretation of scientific texts and development of arguments that pushed the
development of scientific theories forward (Gaonkar, 1993). Many have tried to
establish the art of rhetoric as a standard for grammar and the study of
language however, it failed to take root (Gaonkar, 1993). Rhetoric instead became
institutionalized and found itself no longer useful in the study of culture,
but as Gaonkar (1993), says, better suited for the training of bureaucratic statesman
(259). Rhetoric, in its contemporary sense is now more concerned with what ancient
rhetoricians referred to as Rhetorica Docens (Gaonkar,
1993). It could be argued that this is when rhetoric turned towards the justification
of scientific arguments and ideas. The art of persuading others to one’s ideas
as defined by Libguides.berry.edu. “Practical reasoning, figurative language,
compositional structures and strategies, psychology of audience and sociology
of opinion” (Gaonkar, 1993) became the main concern. This became known as more
of a clinical/ interpretative rather than a practical approach to the study of
rhetoric (Gaonkar, 1993).
There
is an undeniable connection between rhetoric and scientific inquiry which has
come to be referred to as the rhetoric of science (Gaonkar, 1993). This rhetoric
generally explores topics such as the effectiveness of scientific discourse on
decision making and public policy, how accessible scientific knowledge is, and how
studies from the natural and social sciences are often times translated within
the premises of each other’s purviews (Gaonkar, 1993).
Writing
in “The Rhetorical Turn:
Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry” Tullio Maranhao suggests that once
rhetoric lost its connection to philosophy, logic, and poetics it became
nothing more than a supplementary way of appealing to what people wanted to
hear, opposed to a method of pursuing truth. Maranhao argues that the “the triumph
of science” (118) caused the traditional rhetoric to be disregarded, and eventually
to be viewed as unethical. Science itself, is largely Godless and people have
come to trust science more so than they trust God (Lindsey, 2005, p. 11).
Science has given birth to theories like Darwinism and has placed human
behavior under the microscope to be studied like an animal instead of a free-thinking
human being. Maranhao also notes that the advent of psychoanalysis, which began
with Freud’s theories on human behavior is partially responsible for the
destruction of religion because of its close association with medicine. Placing
trust in science and rejecting God has also led to the dehumanization of man,
and theories like Communism which justifies the mass elimination of people who do
not fit into what science can describe as ideal human beings. To what extent
has rhetoric contributed to modern day science? That would almost be impossible
to determine; however, there are some important connections that can be made.
In
another article on the rhetoric of science, a correlation is drawn between
rhetoric and its relationship to truth by drawing on the conflicting ideas of
Socrates and Plato. Plato argued that there two types of persuasion (Crick,
2014), one that persuades without any knowledge to back up the argument, and
one that can prove a point through the providing of facts (Crick, 2014). Socrates
on the other hand seemed to hold the view that rhetoric was manipulative in the
sense that it only had the ability to, as Crick (2014) says, persuade people on
subjects they know nothing about. Like science for example. In the book
Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies, Allan Gross says
that the idea of rhetoric being useful in explaining science rests on the idea
that science is the only way of knowing. While on one hand he acknowledges that
science is best explained through rhetorical processes, he suggests on the
other that classical rhetoric is an empty vacuum lacking any real intellectual
prowess (Crick, 2014). This suggests that he believes man defines truth in his
own terms. The ultimate goal of Gross, according to Crick (2014), was to assign
the qualities of classical rhetoric such as pathos, ethos and logos to the
rhetoric of science so as to give scientific argument, once only based on
speculative opinion, the weight of truth.
Peter Ramus
Peter
Ramus was a rhetorician who had a long-lasting influence on science. He was
believed to be a reformer in scientific thinking as many viewed his methods as
a challenge to traditional scholasticism (Bizzell & Herzberg, 675). According to Bizzell & Herzberg
(675), he believed men did not need a classical education, or a moral, philosophical
foundation (678) to reason. The ability to reason, Ramus argued was an innate
human characteristic (675). It was much better, according to Ramus, to learn
how to reason and to then “set off on one’s own pursuit of knowledge” (Bizzell
& Herzberg, 675). This resulted, according to Bizzell & Herzberg (675)
in a watered-down rhetoric focused mostly on style and delivery and lacking any
philosophical or moral qualities (Bizzell & Herzberg, 675). This coincides
with Goankar’s explanation of rhetoric described above where practical
reasoning and sociology of opinion became the focus (Gaonkar,
1993). While Bizzell & Herzberg
claim Ramus was attracted to protestant Christianity as it focused on a
personal relationship with Christ, his rhetorical methods have little to do
with religion and revolve around discovering knowledge of self and, institutionalizing
a “Renaissance, humanist course of study in the liberal arts” (Triche & McKnight, 2006).
According to Triche and McKnight (2006) Ramus’s
methodologies are responsible for much of the modern way education presents
problem solving, and for the accepted methods of organizing and presenting
instructional materials. Ramus’s dialectal method, however, was a little
confusing. Citing the book, The Influence of Petrus Ramus:
Studies in sixteenth and seventeenth century philosophy and sciences, Hamilton
(2003) notes that Ramus was often looked upon in a negative way because he
broke away from an Aristotelian way of thinking. Aristotelian logic formed the
base of humanist thinking before Ramus because it revolved around “argumentation,
reasoning, logic and truth” (Hamilton, 2003). Bizzell & Herzberg (675) also acknowledge that Ramus shunned
Aristotle’s work in pursuit of his own reasoning. Again, Ramus believed there
was no need for a moral, philosophical foundation in the development of
effective rhetoric (Bizzell & Herzberg 675).
Lack of moral clarity in Ramus’s dialectical
method, and the rejection of a system of logic that pursues truth has had its
consequences. For instance, Triche & McKnight describe Ramus’s theory of
dialect by saying that “Ramus asserted dialectic (logic) provided
the necessary laws for defining what should and should not be included in a
particular art or science.” What logic is Ramus referring to? This is an
example of Ramus pursuing his own knowledge and understanding because it lacks
any solid foundation. It assumes that truth is a relative concept and left to
the whim of man to define. Science itself, is supposed to lay groundwork for
discovering truth. When man decides what elements to leave out or what to add, truth
becomes diluted.
Ramus’s
influence on humanism, and his philosophies on dialect are evident in
modern humanism as well. Modern humanists are largely atheistic and believe as
Ramus did, that man’s achievements are due to his own innate wisdom and
abilities to create, not what they would refer to as an imaginary God. Humanists
admit that the truths they cling to arise from their imperfect methods of
discovery and that their moral and political philosophies are influenced by
such truths (Edwards, 1984). Furthermore, Edwords (1984) says that the moral
and political implications of humanist thought are “subject to the continual
revision in light of both the fallible and tentative nature of our knowledge
and constant shifts in social conditions.” This could be compared to Ramus’s description
of dialect. It suggests a fluid, relative nature of truth based on man’s
assertions and not, a universal standard of morality.
The
implications of this type of thinking are numerous and evident in today’s
world. Science, based on man’s fallible knowledge and rejection of God, tells
us that gender is a fluid concept, for example, and that it can be expressed at
will by those who may be suffering from gender confusion. Applying the humanist
concept of “continual revision in light of both the tentative and fallible
nature of our knowledge,” this type of thinking is leading many to believe that
men can identify as women and compete in women’s sports, as women.
Rejection
of sound moral doctrine based on God’s word opposed to man’s reasoning has also
led to theories like Critical Race Theory which asserts that all white men are
inherently racist. This is based on a revisionist history seen through the lens
of those practicing critical theory itself. Critical Theory is a doctrine of
men, who relying on their own reasoning sought to change the society in which
they live through criticizing popular culture (Bohman, 2019). Bohman claims
that critical theory seeks to free men from enslavement, but because its
precepts are Marxist in origin (Bohman, 2019), the definition of enslavement
has many interpretations. Marx sought to destroy capitalism and viewed it as a
system that exploited people, not one that lifted them from poverty. Marx’s
rhetoric led to the rise of communism because it denied God’s truth of human
nature.
The
problem with doctrines like Critical Theory, and the idea that people can
randomly choose their own gender is that they deny God’s truth; they are based
on personal perceptions and opinions ̶ the reasoning of men who were in pursuit
of their own knowledge. The results have been disastrous. Our nation is facing
many controversies because a segment of the population believes it is oppressed
based on the rhetoric of those who define history on their own terms, not
truth. The traditional view of family, marriage, men, and women is also
destroyed because people have been infused with Godless science based on men’s
ideas that gender is fluid and can be chosen on a whim based on feelings.
Goankar
(1993), noted how the Rhetoric of Science affected the discourse of the natural
and social sciences. Ironically, and this goes back to the description of
Ramus’s dialectic described by Triche and McKnight (2006), there is evidence of
severe bias in scientific journals which according to Simundic (2013), “creates
false impression in the literature and may cause long-term consequences to the
entire scientific community.” Simundic (2013) also writes that it is not
uncommon, particularly in scientific journals, for evidence to be left out, or
articles to be left unpublished, if they do not support the findings the study
sought to obtain in the first place.
It
would be difficult, if not impossible to prove that Ramus’s ideas on reason,
and his rejection of moral philosophy in rhetoric had a direct influence on the
doctrines discussed and even science today. It is known however that he was
considered a reformer by those who also rejected the traditional views of the
time. His explanation of dialect suggests that men define truth and decide for
themselves what logic should or should not be included in the pursuit of
scientific inquiry. His rejection of Aristotelian logic, which is based in the
pursuit of truth as it is, not man’s own interpretation of it, and his
insistence that man can reason without an absolute morality, can in theory be
connected to the modern views of humanism which also posits the idea that men
can reason without God and that truth is a relative, fluid concept. The
rejection of truth as an absolute is leading to many problems in society today.
Francis
Bacon
Francis
Bacon, according to Bizzell
and Herzberg (737), had a long-lasting influence on psychology. This is interesting
in the sense that Bacon also argued against developing a reliance on the doctrines
of men suggesting, as discussed in the previous section, and that there are
consequences for doing so (Bizzell & Herzberg, 737). This would also suggest that Bacon believed
in the existence of an absolute truth however, his influence on psychology and
the rhetoric he developed contradicts this because psychology, just as humanism
and critical theory, is a doctrine of man that largely rejects the truth of
God.
One of Bacon's contributions to rhetoric
according to Bizzell and Herzberg (737) was what he referred
to as the Idol system. This system focused on the consequences of false ideas
and argued that men’s perception of reality is distorted by systems of logic
which rely on their own reasoning (Bizzell and Herzberg 737). This is where Bacon’s ideas had
the long-lasting influence on psychology mentioned by Bizzell and Herzberg (737).
Ironically, it is very contradicting because the Idol system is a doctrine of
Bacon’s making which is not based on a universally accepted notion of Biblical
morality, but Bacons own ideas and his insistence that men had become too
“slavishly submissive to Aristotelian logic,” which he argued was creating
madness in the minds of men (Weeks, 2019). Bacon, according to Weeks (2019)
believed that all men were insane until purged of, and this is based on the
above quote, classical and traditional thought which enslaved them. This is
also a common belief in psychology. Many theorists base their beliefs on the
idea that man has no soul, which can be traced to Darwinism, which is another
doctrine of man’s own making. Weeks (2019) suggests that Bacon knew people
would only accept his theories of the mind if they understood how serious the
problem was. Again, we are talking about his theories on the human mind,
not a Biblical truth of human nature.
Bacon’s
theory of idols is broken down into four categories: inquiry and invention,
judgment, memory, and delivery (Bizzell and Herzberg 737). Weeks (2019), describes inquiry
and invention as imagination. Bacon, Weeks argued, believed that imagination
was the root of all human error. He believed that the human mind altered
reality by confusing the nature of things as they are with the nature of the
individual (Weeks, 2019). The grand deception
of the senses was a term Bacon used to
describe the idea that men had a habit of relating their senses and experiences
to only to their own limited sense of reality, that their senses represented
the true measure of things, not a universal standard (weeks, 2019). Bacon’s
theory is very confusing and contradictory in the sense that on one hand, he
argues that all human actions, thought memory, imagination and even the ability
to reason (Weeks 2019), were the result of a “material vital spirit” (Weeks,
2019). Is he using the word spirit in the same sense that Christian doctrine
would? That is difficult to determine. It could be more related to the idea
that men’s behavior is governed not by free choice but by evolutionary
processes. Bacon argued, according to Weeks (2019) that “nothing really exists in
nature besides individual bodies, carrying out pure, individual acts according
to law.” According to what law? If nothing exists in nature, he cannot be referring
to natural law which is an extension of God’s creation. This belief is more in
line with B.F. Skinner’s view on human behavior, which of course is derived
from Darwinism. Skinner argued that human behavior was not controlled by our
free wills, but by evolutionary instincts ̶
"In what we may call the pre-scientific
view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at
least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and
act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes
and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not
necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment
traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental
circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can
be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence
should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the
environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an
autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when
we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed:
in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not
changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how
to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological
technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior." (Skinner,
1971, p.101)
The view that Bacon’s theories somehow
contributed to Darwinist thought, or the development of Skinners beliefs about
behaviorism is not unique to this writer. Macdonald (2008), also argued that
Bacon influenced the study of human behavior and in fact, his study revolved
around the idea of learning how to “predict and control human behavior”
(Macdonald, 2008). Macdonald makes a direct correlation between Bacon's beliefs
in empiricism and the idea that psychology is a natural science based on “observation
and experiment” (Macdonald, 2008), and
its findings are largely subjective, meaning they are open for interpretation. This
concept has many implications. For example, humans are indeed motivated by
certain stimuli to behave in a certain way. Skinner as mentioned earlier, would
be inclined to believe that a person’s behavior is not the result of free
thinking, but forced by environmental circumstances stemming from our
evolutionary history. People arguing from a religious perspective on the other
hand would argue that people are responsible for their actions, not their
environment. The implications are larger still as blaming behavior on the
environment allows people to make excuses and not be held accountable.
Macdonald (2008) also cites Skinner's theories
as being directly relatable to Bacon. Psychology also attempts to predict and
control human behavior through stimulus response mechanisms. According to
Macdonald (2008) Skinner said that human beings should not be viewed as doers
or originators of action because our behavior is controlled by whatever
stimulus is motivating us to act. Finally, Macdonald (2008) also cites Skinner
as being motivated, or inspired by Bacon's work drawing a direct correlation
from Bacon's rhetoric to the Godless views held by behaviorists who have in
their power, the ability to influence policy and politics based on their
understandings of human behavior.
While Bacon believed there was an objective
truth in the world (Bizzell and Herzberg 737) this is different from the idea of absolute truth; it
leaves truth up for interpretation of those studying it. To his credit he
argued against the idea of relying too much upon “narrow empiricism” (Bizzell and Herzberg 737),
which meant an individual’s senses constituted reality. Unfortunately, this cannot
really be held up to any scrutiny because Bacon's system of idols, while
designed to warn of the consequences of the relying on human understanding, was
also a system of false logic. Nowhere in it was the idea of truth being based
on Biblical morality. God to Bacon was a god who created a mystery (Macdonald, 2008) where only
few could decipher the great wonder when in fact, truth is self-evident and God,
accessible to all.
Darwin
Darwin’s theory of evolution, which posits
the idea that men are no more significant than any other animal is, as author
of the book “The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of
Inquiry” Herbert Simons explains, a product based not on a standardized
system of logic, but on the rhetorical logic of the day. Is this another
example of man deciding what should or should not be included in scientific
inquiry, as Ramus described in his dialect? Darwin’s theory of evolution,
according to Bergman (2001) was viewed by Marx, Stalin, Lenin, and other
atheistic dictators as a replacement of the Biblical story of Genesis as man’s
origins. It was Darwin’s work, according to James Perloff, which enabled Marx
to give communism a scientific justification. Marx’s view of class struggle is
based on Darwin’s evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest. Ironically, the
modern debate revolving around racism can also be tied to Darwin’s theory of
evolution. According to The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, the modern
view of racism can be traced back to a man named Francis Galton, who was a half
cousin of Charles Darwin and a subscriber to his theory of evolution. Galton,
believing in the survival of the fittest mentality, thought of Africans as
being inferior and being incapable of living independently because they lacked
free will. This is the result of evolutionary thinking which is taught in
America’s public schools.
Locke and Classical
Rhetoric
John
Locke argued that natural religion is something that is not easily
misunderstood (Bizzell & Herzberg, 825) and that men should be careful to
observe God’s natural laws (Bizzell & Herzberg, 825). What did he mean by
this? Traditionally, there has been no rhetorical method for interpreting
Biblical texts (Joosten, 2016). Not surprisingly Joosten (2016), points out the fact that
perhaps the most effective method that could be helpful would be that of
classical rhetoric. Classical rhetoric is almost the exact opposite of that of
Ramus and Bacon. It is clear and easy to decipher. Classical rhetoric follows a
commonsense approach to persuasive speech by starting with an introduction, a
narration of facts, a demonstration of what justifies the facts being
discussed, and a conclusion (Joosten, 2016). It is simple and easy to follow.
The classical
authors—Aristotle, Quintilian, Cicero, and many others—understood that the
crucial concerns of a speech lie not within the discourse, but without it, in
reality. Thus, classical rhetoric develops the notion of ‘ethos’: the capacity
of orators to project of themselves the image of someone who is wise, just, and
likeable; it develops the notion of ‘pathos’: the capacity to awaken the
feelings of the audience and to harness them to the persuasive enterprise. (Joosten, 2016)
Ramus rejected the works
of Quintilian on the grounds that moral arguments were not needed in pursuit of
knowledge and that man should pursue not the classical rhetoric, but his own
understanding. While classical rhetoric addresses the same ideas of persuading
an audience, what matters most is not what is said in the argument but what the
consequences will be (Joosten, 2016). This is clearly not the case with Ramus
or Bacon, or other rhetoricians for that matter. There main concern seems to be
gaining recognition for their contributions and changing the discourse to reflect
their viewpoints. To dominate the world of rhetoric not necessarily search for
truth. That is just this writer’s humble opinion. It is hard to deny however,
that a turn away from classical rhetoric, which was based on something deeper
than an individual’s own interpretation, has had dire consequences.
Both Bacon and Ramus had lasting influences
on science and psychology. Ramus, because he was considered a reformer whose
dialect almost allowed the rejection of an absolute truth in favor of choosing
on our own accord what constituted concepts of reality. It was man’s own
reasoning and logic which dictated what ideas should be used in scientific
inquiry, not truth. Bacon, while seemingly more grounded in his insistence that
man be careful to become reliant on human understanding, did the exact opposite
through the creation of his idol systems. This opened the door, theoretically,
according to Macdonald (2008), for behaviorists like B.F. Skinner to justify
their attempts to predict and control human behavior. The rejection of truth as
an absolute and the lack of Biblical morality in the rhetoric of science has
led, arguably, to atrocities committed by men who were able to offer
scientific rationale for the elimination of millions of human beings. Darwin’s
theory of evolution, which is Godless in its origins, led to the creation of
atheistic communism and Nazism, rationalizing that men, because they were only
animals, had no special significance and that their behavior could be molded to
fit the views of those who rejected God and accepted science. Are these
philosophies consequences of rejecting Aristotelian logic, or
even a Biblical based morality?
This
writer was motivated to write this paper because of correlations he saw
pertaining to the concepts of Darwinism, behaviorism, and authoritarianism
which he is already interested in, and the rhetoric of Bacon and Ramus. It
stood to reason that their rhetoric eventually led to the rejection of the
classical sense of morality and classical thinking that there would be
connections between these rhetoricians and the Godless science which seems to
govern our world today. The rhetoric of science posits the idea that rhetoric
itself became a method of reinterpreting scientific texts and not of studying
and understanding human culture, as Gaonkar (1993) suggests. There is a sharp contrast
between the classical rhetoric of Aristotle, Ramus and Bacon. This contrast can
be described as the difference between one that seeks to understand truth, and
one that seeks to create truth. Ramus and Bacon have rejected classical
rhetoric in favor of pursuing their own knowledge. The classical systems of
logic have been described by those seeking to solidify science as absolute truth
as being vacuous in intellectualism. Theoretically, it could not only be argued
that the rejection of Aristotelian logic, or morality in discourse led to the
rise of Godless theories like Darwinism and communism. It could be argued in
theory that suggesting the classical rhetoric, which Joosten (2016) suggested
was best suited for interpreting the Bible from a rhetorical standpoint, is
leading to the godlessness we see in science today.
Bizzell,
P. & Herzberg, B. (2001) The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings From
Classical Times To The Present 2nd Ed. Boston. Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
Bohman, J. (2019) Critical Theory, The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/critical-theory/>.
Creating Racism: Psychiatry’s Betrayal. Citizens Commission on
Human Rights. (2004) Report and recommendations on psychiatry causing racial
conflict and genocide. Retrieved from http://www.cchrstl.org/documents/racism.pdf
Crick,
N. (2014) When we can’t wait for the truth: The nature of rhetoric in the
rhetoric of science. Porio, An interdisciplinary iournal of rhetorical analysis
& invention. 10(2) pp. 1-29. Retrieved from https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ee4a4bb5-d7c6-4402-ad6f-6532ae5c7003%40sdc-v-sessmgr03
Edwords, F. (1984) The
humanist philosophy in perspective. Humanist, (44), 17 p. 18.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/1290375256?accountid=12085
Feingold,
M. Freedman, J.S. & Rother, W. (eds.) (2001). The Influence of Petrus
Ramus: Studies in sixteenth and seventeenth century philosophy and sciences.
Basel: Schwabe.
Gaonkar, D, P. (1993) The
idea of rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. The Southern Communication
Journal, 58(4), 258. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/226935778?accountid=12085
Gross,
A. Starring the text: The place of rhetoric is scientific studies. (2006)
Southern
Illinois University Press.
Hamilton,
D. (2003) Instruction in the Making: Peter Ramus and the Beginnings of Modern
Schooling. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED477528.pdf
Lindsey,
D.M. The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing Exposing the lies of Godless human
science. (2005) Pelican Publishing Company. Gretna. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5cunKLX7984C&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=godless+rhetoric+of+Bacon&ots=Hro2x8_2LU&sig=TEoMdCPa9rpHeu7tlvZKDBCv6s0#v=onepage&q=godl
Joosten, J. (2016).
Biblical Rhetoric as Illustrated by Judah’s Speech in Genesis 44.18–34. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament, 41(1), 15–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309089216628417
Macdonald, Paul S.
(2008) Francis Bacon’s Behavioral Psychology. Journal of the history of
the behavioral sciences. (43) 3 p. 286 Retrieved from com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=fda0cbff-f895-4890-9b56-3182bff92598%40pdc-v-sessmgr01
Perloff, J., Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless
Myth of Darwinism. 1999. Refuge Books, Arlington.
Simons, H. The
Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. (1990)
University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=675678
Simundic, A. (2013) Bias
in research. Biochemia medica. 23(1) p. 12-15 Retrieved from https://www.biochemia-medica.com/assets/images/upload/xml_tif/Simundic_AM_-Bias_in_research.pdf
Skinner,
B, F. Beyond
freedom and dignity. Middlesex England: Penguin books ltd. 1971 Retrieved from https://selfdefinition.org/psychology/BF-Skinner-Beyond-Freedom-&-Dignity-1971.pdf
Triche, S., &
McKnight, D. (2006) The quest for method: The legacy of Peter Ramus. Journal
of the history of education society, 33(1). Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/full/10.1080/00467600410001648751
Weeks,
S., V. (2019) Francis Bacon’s doctrine of idols: A diagnosis of universal
madness. British journal for the history of science. 52(1) p. 1-39.
Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2188042580?pq-origsite=summon
No comments:
Post a Comment