Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca focus on argumentation, which they define as the "study of discursive techniques allowing us to induce or increase the mind's adherence to the theses presented for its assent" (86), as opposed to demonstration which is dependent upon logic and can be like a one-sided statement rather than persuasion. As a result, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca developed a theory of argument enabling one to assess values [upon which argument is based] rationally. The pair's definition of argumentation is very epistemic; it involves the generation and/or acceptance of [new] knowledge.
By asserting that argumentation is highly personal, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca suggest that pathos is essential to success in practicing this art. Hence their analysis and emphasis on audience. Their discussion of audience reminds us of the importance of writing and speaking with them in mind, at the same time taking into account their needs, attitudes, and knowledge.
The team's definition of audience "the ensemble of those whom the speaker wishes to influence by his argumentation" and "the speaker's mental conception of the audience rather than [to] the physical presence of a group of people assembled to hear a speech" (88), reinforces our talk in class about Bush speaking to his supporters when delivering the State of the Union Address.
Because Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca believe that argumentations purpose is to form agreement, the concur with the common principle that rhetoric largely involves persuasion.
I disagree with the statements that facts do not have to be true and that truth is relative.
It seems that today this perspective is widely accepted and practiced. From the reading, however, I gather that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca were innovative and entrepreneurial in explaining and establishing this point of view.