Here's how I suggest we make this e-discussion as interactive and engaging as possible:
Our discussion leader will make a short introductory comment on this post, highlighting briefly one aspect of this week's reading that struck her as important. Once she has introduced the subject, she will ask a question that the next commenter should attempt to address/explore. The respondent will then ask a follow-up question. Thus, we will create the intellectual equivalent of a chain thread on an internet forum.
Our starting point is completely at our discussion leader's discretion -- likely something about Aristotle and science writing, the rhetoric of science, technologies of writing, etc.
What I need each respondent to do:
- Please post at least twice, allowing others to respond before you comment again.
- Please attempt to address the question, even if it's just to say you don't know (and explain what confuses, challenges, or eludes you).
- Please ask a follow-up question that allows some freedom of interpretation (i.e. yes or no questions won't propel the discussion very well).
- Please cite relevant sections of the text in Book:Chapter:Line format.
I may or may not chime in on the discussion, as I really want to see how this unfolds organically; I haven't tried to do this on Blogger before. That said, if there is any confusion that you think I can clear up, please shoot me an email and I'll weigh in.
Happy reading!
Hey guys, guess I get to start this conversation.
ReplyDeleteNow I know that the question will seem a little broad, but let me begin with an explanation as to how I got to it.
In class, we looked at how the different science books presented the subject of science for all different audiences.
Now Aristotle presents three ways to persuade whens speaking to an audience. These are the personal character of the speaker, putting the audience in the proper mindset and finally logical proof. Yet most of the modern presentations of science rhetoric are done in the written form. While the logic appeal seems to be quite understandably translatable from the spoken word to the written word, the placing of the audience into a mindset and the presentation of character are drastically different.
My question is: Are these three points still used in the presentation of science rhetoric today? Related to that, how has the implementation changed?
Hello all,
DeleteIs this thread supposed to be completed by Tuesday or Thursday? With a total of ten in-sequence response posts (two posts per person), a Tuesday deadline seems prohibitive. (Obviously, I'm not counting this post as one of my responses!)
Thanks!
Michael
We should try to get in two posts by Thursday, but a continued discussion would be good, too. Feel free to chat after the minimum two posts.
DeleteP.s. I'll be posting up the readings from Bacon/Campbell tomorrow night, so the presenter can get a jump on it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi everyone,
DeleteRebecca posted an interesting two-tiered question. In a limited scope, I think she might be in a unique position to answer her own question, given her research last semester on where students obtain scientific news/information. To that effect, it seems that the personal character of the speaker and the speaker's task to put the audience in the proper mindset can be incorporated through sources of scientific information that include personal blogs, popular news sources, and professional conferences.
That said, the bastion of scientific method is disinterested inquiry. To the extent that this ideal is preserved in scientific pursuit, the character of the speaker and "setting the mood" should play little role in scientific discourse. I do think, however, that these characteristics seem to have increased in weight as academic knowledge becomes more readily accessible: scientific reputation captivates reader attention, as well as secures grant funding, both from increasingly remote markets. The idea that science operates in a vacuum has always been specious, but it seems that barriers to insular scientific communities have been minimized, if not eliminated, further dispelling this belief.
These thoughts, however, are largely speculative. Aristotle would of course recommend an empirical study – much like Rebecca’s – in order to determine the extent to which these factors contribute to the building and distribution of scientific knowledge. I would like to hear more about existing empirical research, perhaps in “Science Studies,” that speaks to the matter. I would also like to hear a synopsis of Rebecca’s findings from last semester. Further, I would like to hear others’ thoughts about a potential “litmus test” to determine whether scientists are capable of answering these questions with minimal bias; if a scientist admits to being influenced by personal characteristics, such as those described above, they admit to a dilution of scientific method.
In response to Rebecca's question I think that the three methods of persuasion - ethos, pathos, and logical proof - outlined by Aristotle can be applied to written texts as well. While a speaker may build credibility through the display of personal qualities (physical appearance, voice quality, personality) a writer can build credibility by focusing on the design, layout, organization and structure of the paper, by backing arguments and claims with reliable sources, and by presenting oneself as a writer well-versed with the subject matter at hand.
DeleteWith regards to pathos or stirring the emotions of the readers, I think science writers have ample opportunities to do so. For instance, a climate scientist might put readers in panic mode by arguing that if greenhouse gases are not reduced, weather patterns will change drastically. By using such rhetorical strategies, scientists can influence the public and policy makers.
Therefore, although scientific studies are supposed to be objective and non-judgmental as pointed out by Michael, I think the role of rhetoric comes into play when scientists are faced with the task influencing different stakeholders - public, donors, policy makers - to accept their findings.
We should possibly consider that Prabin’s assertions (that rhetoric is a part of science in that it is necessary to persuade to action,) is a relatively new idea when considering the historical place of science in relation to rhetoric, as Aristotle defined it. In the article “Rhetoric of Science” (see the resource recommended by Dr. Parrish), we are told that classical rhetoric is strictly concerned with matters of opinion, things that “we cannot know with any certainty”. This firmly places science in the dialectic, where it is free to operate with “disinterested inquiry”, as Michael so well stated. But in the writing samples we examined in class, we clearly see that disinterested inquiry is abandoned in favor of rhetorical discourse, in an effort to grab the audience that is critical for dissemination of information and, a baser goal, market share.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that we can agree that rhetorical influences are present in many scientific writings, I am curious to know if such usage in fact violates the premise of science, that it is concrete knowledge free from persuasion and opinion. Can science ever be truly objective, since the communication of scientific laws is limited to the ultimately flawed individual?
I responded to Gwen's post earlier, so I thought I would re-post it here (sorry Rebecca if there is any repetition).
DeleteTo answer Gwen's question, I think the answer is "no, it is not possible for science to be truly objective." In Research Methods, we read an article by Bazerman titled "Creating Knowledge". In this article we were introduced to the post-positivist paradigm that said that all truth-claims were subject to individual perception and interpretation.
While science is a rigorous field, and relies on empirical evidence, it can not be purely objective. The only language that can be purely empirical is math. Language will always be somewhat subjective. Further, science research will inevitably be presented in a rhetorical situation. There are several stakeholders: grant board reviewers, policy makers, and government agencies (NIH and NSF). These agencies have expectations that grant proposals and manuscripts emulate the language of a "colleague", which limits and shapes discourse. Also- these stakeholders determine what subjects of research are significant.
In Chapter 7, Aristotle states "the more valuable and honorable the object of a science, the more honorable the science is by consequence." I think this is clearly demonstrated in the study of medicine. Morbid as it is, cancer is considered a more valuable subject of study than degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. This is because public perception is that the former strips away young life, and the latter is a typical part of aging. Inquiry, therefore, is not disinterested, but reliant on the perception of the worth of the research. It is the job of the rhetor to convince their audience that their research has social value and tangible application (Chapter 6/7).
That being said, the empirical nature of science provides some interesting consequences to rhetoric. Aristotle says in Chapter one, "We are most dearly persuaded when we consider a thing to be demonstrated". People are more apt to grant science research authority because in order to be valid, it must have statistical significance via repetition. An experiment that consistently yields the same result is a clear demonstration of logic. This avoids the uncertainty that may accompany enthymemes or fallible proofs (Chapter 1).
My question to pose: we've been discussing how "scientific neutrality" creates a seemingly invisible author. Would you say readers picture a stereotypical bench-scientist as the author? How could this work for or against the author? How does this impact scientific persuasion?
At this point I would like to answer Gwen's question by saying a little now and assuring her that I will have more an answer tomorrow in class. I read an article for this week that spoke to this very point. It is not that rhetoric must be about persuasion and opinion, but rhetoric itself is the art of language. Rhetoric is the use of language to do anything, but specifically Aristotle believed that it is best applied to things like politics and the like. When speaking on science, rhetoric can be used to persuade people to see why pursuing science is beneficial, it can be used to explain one side of an issue or another, and it can be used to simply lay out the facts as they stand, in an argument that lies along the lines of an enthymeme with an unspoken phrase. In Aristotle's time the phrase would have been "thus there is God here too" but in our time the phrase would likely be more complex.
ReplyDeleteIt is actually this idea, this phrase that is left unspoken that I would like to ponder. What is it in this day and age that we seek to prove in our science writing? Is it "the universe is more vast than we know"? There are so many different possibilities, but what would be the underlying reason that people would be writing about science?
I'd like to comment on Rebecca's question because it relates to what I was saying earlier.
DeleteI think we seek to prove 1)significance and 2)application of scientific research. Science writing needs to concisely portray what research means and its future implications for the field or society in general.
I wonder if this question might be an appropriate place to tie in Chapter 5 (on happiness). Did anyone else struggle to find a place to incorporate this material?
Science writing is significant when pertains to our internal or external virtues. In some way, our writing needs to appeal to society's ideals of wellness: healthy, beauty, and intelligence.
Question: Are there any parallels between Aristotle's description of the authority of justice (in chapter 15) and the our society's acceptance of scientific authority?
In response to Rebecaa's question - "what would be the underlying reason that people would be writing about science? - I think that one of the reasons that people write about science is to communicate and share scientific findings with the general public. This is along the lines of what Emiline has said in her response - science writing needs to concisel portray what research means and its future implications for the field or society in general.
DeleteIn chapter 2 Aristotle talks about "General lines ( that don't apply to any special subject matter) and special lines ( that apply to some specific subject matter) of argument. It is also mentioned in chapter two that "the better the selection one makes of propositions suitable for special Lines of Argument, the nearer one comes, unconsciously, to setting up a science that is distinct from dialectic and rhetoric" (1358b). Question: Does science rhetoric involve special lines of argument, and if so, is it moving away from rhetoric and dialectic and setting up a science of its own as indicated by Aristotle?
Hey Everyone, I posted a very lengthy response this morning...and it appears that it's not on blogspot? Appearing on the blog. Did anyone else have the same problem? I'm going to try and repost it now. My sincere apologies if you weren't able to see it earlier.
ReplyDeleteHello All,
ReplyDeleteEmiline: I can see your post. In fact, I’d like to comment on it.
I’d like to explore your question concerning “author qua bench scientist.” It seems that whether the author is perceived in this light changes across the type of scientific writing in question. To canvas a few forms of scientific writing, we have biographies of prominent scientists, histories of science, popularization of new or complex scientific ideas, and scientific writing designed to prompt readers to action (e.g., to begin recycling or to fund cancer research). It seems that readers might that authors of the latter two forms of scientific writing work actively in a scientific discipline relevant to their topic, while less immersion in scientific practice would be expected from an historian or a biographer. Active practice in theoretical physics seemed to help Brian Greene sell copies of "The Elegant Universe." In this sense, Greene's authority increased his ability to persuade.
While outlining these categories, I wonder if histories of science actually collapse into the category, popularization of scientific thought. It seems that lay versions of any scientific ideas are required for popular/nontechnical histories of science. I’d like to pose a question/challenge for the next lucky blogger: define a working model of the various genres of science writing.
Emiline -
ReplyDeleteCould "wellness" be part of "happiness"?