Rhetoric as it comes to us from Ancient Greece is the study of persuasion.
With time, the term has gone beyond persuasion to mean "symbolic inducement"(Burke) or "arguments for adherence'" (Perelman), which all come down to studying how language works "to instill, dislodge, or modify beliefs--to suasion".
Science is the practice of making knowledge about the natural world. Rhetoric of Science then is an epistemological pursuit, which leads us to epistemology, knowledge, truth, and science. Our task then is to reconcile such esteemed terminology with words like persuasion, opinion, belief, and rhetoric.
How does rhetoric occur in science?
There is considerable work necessary to transform ideas from the scientific sphere to even the semi-popular pages of Scientific American or New Scientist.
Modern science distastes metaphors as is documented by Spratt, of the Royal Society. Spratt called for scientists to eschew all tropes including metaphor. 'Give me as many things in so many words, give me as many ideas in so many words.' He was against literary elaboration, which metaphor is wont to do. "Metaphor names things 'incorrectly', so in one sense it describes an incorrect referent. Spratt's desire to 'cleanse' the language of science arose from the perceived power of metaphors to inflame passion in one of the most internally poisonous periods of English domestic history. Yet Spratt's ideas about good language have a surprisingly modern resonance.
Rhetoric and Incommensurability
Why the Copenhagen method was shelved in favor of the Newtonian method.
Cooperation—works when scientists debate and critically think about issues they can come to a consensus. Rather than Newtonian schools working better than Copenhagen has to do with what the public does with science. P107 incommensurable does not mean not/working together, which makes inco…ty a good thing.
For Khun it's not just about sensation; there must be a physical aspect
How do apriori categories aid in the nature of science? (Kant: Prolegomena p.4-46). "Objective reality and necessary reality for everybody are equivalent.
Incommensurability is not in ideas, theories, language but in people. The remedy is in rhetoric (what doesn't get resolved are people). Is it physical incommensurability—an incommensurability of things, not of people?
Incommensurability is not in ideas, theories, language but in people. The remedy is in rhetoric (what doesn't get resolved are people). Is it physical incommensurability—an incommensurability of things, not of people?
If incommensurability….does exist and derails physics, what's the point of science?
Bacon's four idols and Harris' ways of incommensurability
Bacon Harris ways of incommensurability
Idols of the tribe Brick-wall (gibberish)
Idols of the cave Cosmic (differences in perception of the same phenomena
Idols of the marketplace-- Semantic (clusters of meaning being out of synch)
Idols of the theatre—philosophical systems Pragmatic (themes ad practices of contending parties are out of synch)
It's a problem of people rather than things or theories.
Fit for pint: A rhetorical analysis of peer reviews in scientific publications
technological change and scientific publication
continues to influence society, how those changes are reported, argued about, and decided upon within and without the scientific community will increase in importance.
rhetorical dynamics of science policy controversies as they play out in public disputes
over medical ethics.
What role, if any, do rhetorical interpretations play in the discourse of science? Can the acceptance of scientific ideas be exhaustively explained in terms of epistemic criteria alone, or is there always necessarily recourse to rhetorical topoi?
No comments:
Post a Comment