Government is filled with politicians not of a scientific/mathematical background but instead capable of rhetoric (or not capable at all =D).
The word instead stuck out to me here, because I don't think these two qualities are an either/or quality.
Further, don't be so quick to demonize the rhetorician. Unfortunately the Rhetoric today is all but extinct, to the point that the word is used derogatorily, much like the word Hacker.
You want to make a difference today? Learn rhetoric. Take two weeks and research the term. Find the people who spoke directly to this issue. Your search will take you to the limits of the history of ideas.
I agree, xel02, that a rhetorician must not be solely a rhetorician. That would be like a Hacker who only chooses Hacker methods of communication and then wonder why he/she gets blackballed in the workplace and why no one listens.
Being an expert, by itself, isn't enough to entitle one to the responsibility of speaking for others. The rhetoric, lets now say the Politician, has the responsibility to make decisions for a group, and while these decisions require technocratic involvement, they have other non-technocratic elements to be considered.
I, as an engineer, was appalled to learn from a lawyer that they didn't study rhetoric in law school in our corner of Europe. And debate teams, in high-school or whenever - forget it.
That's like sending soldiers to war without a single visit to the shooting range. Never mind the common citizen.
Comments
Government is filled with politicians not of a scientific/mathematical background but instead capable of rhetoric (or not capable at all =D).
The word instead stuck out to me here, because I don't think these two qualities are an either/or quality.
Further, don't be so quick to demonize the rhetorician. Unfortunately the Rhetoric today is all but extinct, to the point that the word is used derogatorily, much like the word Hacker.
You want to make a difference today? Learn rhetoric. Take two weeks and research the term. Find the people who spoke directly to this issue. Your search will take you to the limits of the history of ideas.
I agree, xel02, that a rhetorician must not be solely a rhetorician. That would be like a Hacker who only chooses Hacker methods of communication and then wonder why he/she gets blackballed in the workplace and why no one listens.
Being an expert, by itself, isn't enough to entitle one to the responsibility of speaking for others. The rhetoric, lets now say the Politician, has the responsibility to make decisions for a group, and while these decisions require technocratic involvement, they have other non-technocratic elements to be considered.
I, as an engineer, was appalled to learn from a lawyer that they didn't study rhetoric in law school in our corner of Europe. And debate teams, in high-school or whenever - forget it.
That's like sending soldiers to war without a single visit to the shooting range. Never mind the common citizen.