Rhetoric: Why continue on?

Rick Politician
Christian Stuart
English 131
May 4, 2005

Scientific Discourse:  A Guide to Separating the Rhetoric from the Science
Alan Gross, professor of Rhetoric at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cites, discusses the use of rhetoric in scientific writing in his book The Rhetoric of Science.  He believes scientists use rhetoric to persuade the scientific community and the public that their findings are “brute facts,” or true laws of nature (363).  These “brute facts” of science are subject to the use rhetoric just like the rules of philosophy, statistics, marketing or any other area of study.   In The Rhetoric of Science, Gross presents some different ways rhetoric can be applied to scientific writing.   A guide to aid one in separating rhetoric from “brute fact,” when analyzing scientific writing, has been synthesized from Gross’s book and presented below.
First, one must realize that scientific discoveries are not discoveries at all, but instead “inventions” of truth based on experiments and established as fact through rhetoric (784).  This can be seen by looking at the numerous scientific theories of history that were accepted as fact once upon a time, but have now been proven to be false.  Although a scientific theory may seem sound today, realize that it is likely to be adapted or proved false in the future.
            Second, one can apply the “stasis” theory to illuminate the point of a scientific writing, the author’s thesis, by deciphering which of the three specific “stasis” questions the scientist tries to answer (367).  For example, if a scientist writes about atoms, they are attempting to answer either:  What is an atom?  What is the character of an atom? Or, how does an atom function?  Scientists create science by endeavoring to answer one or more these questions.
Third, it is necessary for to one acknowledge that scientists utilize seemingly objective tools such as observation, prediction and mathematics to project their interpretations on to “brute facts” (368-69).  These tools may present a theory neatly, but that does not make the theory fact. 
Fourth, one ought to understand how arguments are constructed by scientists (369).  The conclusion of a rhetorical argument is reached by connecting two or more accepted rules of thought, and relying “on the audience to supply missing premises and conclusions.”  Scientific arguments are no different.  The laws of science used to support conclusions are not universal to every situation, everywhere in the universe.  These laws of science have their own premises and conditions.  Furthermore, the connection between each law of science is based on calculations or assumptions subject to interpretation.   In summary, there are so many assumptions and premises required of the reader of a scientific writing that a scientific argument can never be a “basic fact.”
            Fifth, one should be wary of scientific theory in that it utilizes the “authority” of other widely accepted scientific theory (370).  New “innovation” is based upon the “authority” of previously accepted theory.  Yet, the previously accepted theory may be proved false one day.  This building of an argument on top of argument creates a  These widely accepted scientific theories may be condoned by governments and Nobel laureate scientists, but that does not mean the theories are correct.  Think about how many of history’s famous scientists had their theories shunned by the scientific world for decade or centuries before being accepted.  The scientific community seems to be mostly right, not always right.

 

Observation, prediction and mathematics are all subject to the subjectivity of scientists who specifically apply their efforts towards proving or disproving scientific theory.  Thus, the link created between “brute facts…is a rhetorical, not a scientific, conviction.”