2) I suspect that the study of rhetoric is already fairly rationalist, in the sense of rationality being about winning. Rhetoric seems to be the disciplined/rational study of how to deliver persuasive arguments. I suspect many aspiring rationalists attempt to inoculate themselves against the techniques of rhetoric because they desire to believe what is true rather than what is most convincingly argued. A rationalist rhetoric might then be a rhetoric which does not trigger the rationalist cognitive immune system and thus is more effective at persuading rationalists.
3) From my point of view the only goal is success—winning the argument. Everything else is an empirical question.
4) Not necessarily. Since rationalists attempt to protect themselves against well-sounding but false arguments, rationalist rhetoric might focus more on avoiding misleading or logically flawed arguments but only as a means to an end. The goal is still to win the argument, not to be more ethical. To the extent that signaling a desire to be ethical helps win the argument, a rationalist rhetoric might do well to actually pre-commit to being ethical if it could do so believably.
5) I think the study of rhetoric can absolutely be rational—it is after all about winning. The rational study of how people are irrational is not itself irrational.
6) My feeling is that the answer is ‘to a significant degree’ but it’s a bit of an open question.
1) Yes, I’m interested.
2) I suspect that the study of rhetoric is already fairly rationalist, in the sense of rationality being about winning. Rhetoric seems to be the disciplined/rational study of how to deliver persuasive arguments. I suspect many aspiring rationalists attempt to inoculate themselves against the techniques of rhetoric because they desire to believe what is true rather than what is most convincingly argued. A rationalist rhetoric might then be a rhetoric which does not trigger the rationalist cognitive immune system and thus is more effective at persuading rationalists.
3) From my point of view the only goal is success—winning the argument. Everything else is an empirical question.
4) Not necessarily. Since rationalists attempt to protect themselves against well-sounding but false arguments, rationalist rhetoric might focus more on avoiding misleading or logically flawed arguments but only as a means to an end. The goal is still to win the argument, not to be more ethical. To the extent that signaling a desire to be ethical helps win the argument, a rationalist rhetoric might do well to actually pre-commit to being ethical if it could do so believably.
5) I think the study of rhetoric can absolutely be rational—it is after all about winning. The rational study of how people are irrational is not itself irrational.
6) My feeling is that the answer is ‘to a significant degree’ but it’s a bit of an open question.