Adams 1 Carson Adams November 22, 2013 Language and Composition Jana Richards Rhetorical Analysis of The Relativity

of Wrong by Isaac Asimov In the rebuttal The Relativity of Wrong, Isaac Asimov extremely effectively utilizes various simple and complex rhetorical strategies to logically and implicitly present his persuasive counter-argument; namely by the use of Ad hominem retorts, subtle aporia, and exemplification. These rhetorical strategies rely mostly on an empirical and logical premise but must be primarily implicitly interpreted to understand Asimovs actual purpose. One of the primary arguments made by the critical letter to Asimov is that he is ignorant; a main point of the critics letter is a simple Ad hominem attack on Asimovs intellectual integrity, so The Relativity of Wrong addresses this fallacious argument type with its own Ad hominem claims. The essay begins by explaining the claim and nature of a critique made by and English Literature major on an off-handed comment made by Asimov in which he expressed his contentedness for living in an age in which man had finally got the basis of the universe straight. Asimov explains that this critics letter, poorly and nearly illegibly written, stated that the great scientist and fiction writer must be very unwise for claiming to have the basic laws and facts of physics sorted as Socrates himself had said that he was only the wisest man in Greece for acknowledging that he truly knew nothing. If Asimov claimed to know many things, he must be truly very unwise, this Literature major expressed. Furthermore, Asimov explained, the actual logical argument furthered by John followed that since an historical precedent for scientists

Adams 2 claiming to be right only to be proved horribly and obviously wrong by later thinkers and experimenters, Asimov was undoubtedly just as unwise as these supposedly failed theorists. Asimov finally explains, John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. By attacking the legibility of the letter, the scientific credibility of a Literature major, and the intelligence of the writer, Asimov essentially only makes a series of Ad hominem arguments against the character of his critic, however, he does this in an equitable manner; for every attack on his own character, Asimov simply provides his own refuting attack on Johns character. Although Ad hominem claims are obvious logical fallacies in argumentation and should detract from the integrity of Asimovs intellectual purpose, they actually accomplish an alternate portion of his purpose by providing additional persuasiveness. They also serve to address the attacks on his character that may undermine his logical argument in the eyes of less learned individuals. The witty quips are not logically sound counter-arguments or refutations of Johns critique, but they serve to very effectively hook the reader and deal with the lower-level argumentation pursued by the critic. Asimov also employs the rhetorical strategy of aporia to feign confusion so that he can clear up his own false misunderstandings and thereby act as a surrogate for the absent critic, ancient scientists, and audience. This strategy is best seen in Asimovs use of rhetorical questions as if he is equally curious and unsure as he projects these other parties to be. He also uses words of questionable surety to denote his feigned ignorance on the subject. Asimov is acting both as the teacher and as the student in this essay; he is a sounding board of differing levels of

Adams 3 knowledge for his purpose to educate and persuade. Asimovs basic purpose is to convince others logically and, perhaps more importantly in this strategy, organically that wrongness can hardly be considered in absolute terms. Perhaps most succinctly, Asimov states, then questions, So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory. And yet is the earth a sphere? He also writes as if he agrees with those same confused ancients, Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days. By utilizing subtle aporia, this feigned confusion and uncertainty, he directly addresses the internal hesitation and counter-arguments being made by these absent audience members. This rhetorical strategy is highly successful as both a scaffold for Asimovs logical argument and for his persuasive purpose as it is executed especially subtly but also consistently throughout the essay as the mode of discourse. The reader is mostly unaware that Asimov is restricting the number of arguments that the reader can make internally against his essay by implicating these arguments with false confusion and deconstructing them with clarifications made with empirical and logical evidence, and because the reader does not detect this tactic, Asimov does not appear to be manipulative with his aporia. For this reason, the rhetorical strategy used by Asimov is even more effective than if its use were obvious. Another scaffold Asimov uses to shape the way in which he clarifies and counter-argues is the rhetorical strategy of exemplification. Asimov addresses the broad philosophical

Adams 4 quandaries in the form of exemplifying instances. Most specifically, Asimov uses the progress of earth-shape theories over time in order to demonstrate the illogical nature of the central point being made by his critic. He quantitatively argues To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile. The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat. Essentially, Asimov uses this specific example as an arena to demonstrate the obvious absurdness of the critics fundamental logical assertion as it is an excellent illustration of the shortcomings of the definitions of right and wrong implied by Johns attack on Asimovs presumption that the laws of the Universe have been fundamentally understood in his century. The excellence of the employment of this strategy, however, does not come from Asimovs detailed explanation and empiricisms, rather it is in his secondary use of other examples that truly demonstrate the persuasive and argumentative mastery of Asimovs essay. By providing a thorough walk-through for one especially convincing illustration and then subsequently citing other exemplifying instances without providing complete and pedantic justifications, Asimov puts subconscious pressure on the audience to extend the validity of the earth-shape theory case to all other cited cases (heliocentric, geologic, and evolutionary theory) despite not being fully verified logically and empirically. Argumentatively, Asimov does not leave himself fully unprotected in these instances, however, by providing enough justification on the heels of each mention to essentially outline the remainder in the mind of the reader. Asimov

Adams 5 directly relates these other exemplifying instances to his more established counterargument by writing, But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution. Asimov is using partially justified exemplification in such a way that it not only convinces his audience of his critics irrationality in a less abstract and more accessible form, but also saves himself undue and attention losing explication by forcing extrapolation and positive, unknowing argumentation on the part of his reader. This is one of the most persuasive rhetorical tactics as it effectively causes the audience to unwittingly agree with the author in order to fill logical gaps intentionally left. Asimovs empirical and logical arguments are couched well within these rhetorical scaffolds as they lend themselves well to the logical progression he seeks to pursue, and they persuade subtly and easily both learned and casual audience members.

Adams 6 Works Cited

The Skeptical Inquirer 14.1 (Fall 1989): 35-44. Tufts. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. <http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm>.