par Haarscher, Guy 
Référence Argumentation (Dordrecht), 23, 3, page (361-373)
Publication Publié, 2009-08
Référence Argumentation (Dordrecht), 23, 3, page (361-373)
Publication Publié, 2009-08
Article révisé par les pairs
| Résumé : | If you want to challenge or at least weaken the adhesion to a system of values, you can basically adopt two radically opposed rhetorical strategies. Either you will attack the system in a frontal way: for instance, fundamentalists or fascists deny any validity to democratic values and human rights. Or you will pretend to argue from within the system (by saying that you accept some of its basic premises), while subtly distorting the process of reasoning in order to get to your conclusions. If the audience is naïve or poorly informed, you will be able to defend positions that are fundamentally at odds with liberal-democratic values while seeming to argue from inside the system. I would like to show how such a process of "perverse" translation works in the context of the Darwinism/Creationism "controversy". The attacks on the teaching of evolutionary biology began approximately one century ago. The way Creationists have argued and changed several times their rhetorical strategies seems very interesting to me, in that it exemplifies an important contemporary phenomenon, which I call "perverse translation" or "the wolf in the sheepfold". © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009. |
