RH and inquiry

We had really a nice discussion in class on rival hypothesis. Having read Flower more thoroughly after the discussions, it made much more sense for me to value rival hypothesis in the academia. I think this thought makes so much in the context when we talk about academic writing as an argument.

One thing that differentiates academic argument from other arguments is that academic arguments are geared toward making knowledge or meaning. An academic argument is a means of looking at an issue from various possible standpoints and reaching a conclusion, knowledge that was not previously realized. That is why it is so much about the conversation that is already there—no academic discourse can take place in a vacuum. And the emphasis on the conversation, the Burkean parlor, is, I suppose an attempt to look at all possible rival hypothesis. Flower writes, “RH is … a constructive process, attempting to build a ‘better,’ new, qualified, or consensual conclusion in the midst of strong alternatives” (30). This very much explains the process we get involved in an academic conversation. Hence, rival hypothesis is part of the meaning making process in an academic conversation. Valuing RH will help us understand argumentation as an inquiry, and I think the idea of RH can be used productively in the composition class as well.