Finally, science does not have an exclusive right for all the authority in live. Of course, there are times when people seek for scientific answers even in every-day thinking, but it does not necessary mean that they give up all validity from a moral reasoning. To further prove my point of view I will follow Campbell s theory. That sounds like oxymoron for me. Personally I would rather want to have science depend at least on experience, analogy, or calculations than on a memory.
Memory is always a second behind the sensation, behind the reality.
Since there is a possibility of an error thus science can not be as definitive and firm as stated by the both authors in the beginning of the study. As a conclusion, I have to agree with the authors that there are two kinds of things in life along with the two ways of looking for the answers, moral and scientific reasoning. But I disagree with them that rhetoric can use only ethical reasoning while a science is left as a firm, unquestionable thesis. In my perspective, Campbell is a slightly closer to the truth. As I said before, we can not think that rhetoric and science are unambiguously distinct.