Controversy expands this view event to include moments where public opinion gets initiated in private, expert discussions. The decision of the General Advisory Committee on the hydrogen bomb was the product of experts conversing in secret, but reasons spoken in the name of various constituencies gradually drew public involvement. These deliberations form vocabularies of motives. Finally, prudence changes, I think. So the parameters and value of prudence is varied and renewed by each generation.
Rhetorical inquiry is inherently evaluative.
Ideally, its scholars are always mindful that they, too, are engaged in the practice of argument or advocacy. So, at the present juncture, I would argue that for the post Cold War world, it is prudent to release our disciplinary push for prediction, control, and abstract explanation and to subject our own categories and definitions of opinion formation to reflection. A new era asks for novel ways of thinking about public discussion. I was struck particularly by the reference to modernists' evidence-gathering strategy. That would be the first thing I want you to talk about.