Inference Between Rhetoric and Logic

Abstract

This dialogue addresses the concept of argumentation and its related notions such as inference, debate, and dialogue, among other concepts that intersect at the boundaries of human communication. All these notions share the intent to convey a message and influence the listener through language, but they differ in methods and tools due to the varying purposes of speech. The similarities between them do not reach the level of synonymy, nor do the differences reach the level of disconnection. Rhetoric can encompass these branches of knowledge and distinguish between them at the same time, as long as the discourse is related to context and the purpose of the speech determines its meaning based on its surroundings. Given that speech has two meanings: an apparent and a hidden one, and since the hidden meaning cannot be understood without the apparent one unless there is justification for transitioning from the first meaning to the second derived from the context, the written or spoken dialogue is classified as a conversation, debate, inference, or rhetoric based on the speaker's intended purpose. These concepts require the presence of two interlocutors governed by agreement or disagreement. If the speech pertains to an issue of agreement, the discussion is a dialogue. If it pertains to a contentious issue, the discussion becomes a debate or argument where there is a difference of opinion, and each party seeks to prevail and refute the other. In this regard, we have endeavored to distinguish between the terms to understand the differences among them and to identify their ranks in inferential and interactive strength.