Factness: fact of facts.

Whom could I talk to who could provide me with information that has factness about this question?What could I read that would provide me with information that has factness about this question? What else could I do besides talk to people and read to acquire information or factness about this question? (Jolliffe 75)


What question needs factness? For in fact, a question is no fact, it is a merely the quest of answering the question, and therefor, discovering the fruitful nature of truth.

1) Anyways, I could find information regarding factness from many sources. Being that my topic is political discourse, and more specifically, rhetoric, I could ask many sources including but not limitted to: political theorists(if I could locate one), professors of politics, law makers, rhetoric instructors(English-Comp) and even philosophers. These people and more could definitely help provide the factness I need for my research.

2) Reading is a great way to learn. As I'm sure most of my peers would agree, our entire research is dependent upon what texts we can find. For my topic, I think the best types of sources would be other research papers. Ideally, I would like to draw upon research that has already been done so that I could further it with my own. I could also turn to historical documents, documents containing subliminal clues to how political discourse has evolved. I may also be inclined to dust off the archaic books of the first political philosophers and founders of rhetoric. Everyone from Plato to Aristotle to more modern names like Trimbur, Royser, and O'Rourke(shout out).

3) What else could I do to discover factness? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is to explore what is known to not be fact, or that which is known to be false. I'm not entirely sure how best to go about this without said methords, but I could try drawing information from other media sources such as radio and TV. I could also cross reference two or more sources, looking for logic, and rational congruency. If two sources are talking about the same thing, but stating different facts about both, that would be a clear signal that something is false. My objective would then be to discover which parts from which sources are wrong.

I don't know. That's all I have right now.