Rhetoric of Science and Form - Research Paper Example

? Rhetoric of Science and Form Rhetoric of Science and Form Writing has different approaches, which cuts across the curriculum hence the springing up of theories from different groups of theorists, researchers, and critics. Several scholars have inspected the specialized languages of the disciplines, sciences, and professions. Through such examinations, researchers have received determination in different aspects of languages such as postmodern critique of scientific authority. Despite the different places and forms in which these examinations have been carried out, the general provisions assigned to it is Rhetoric of Science. Collectively, these diverse motivated and organized examinations contribute to a common representation of writing practices in the various disciplines and the connection of the procedures. The inspections of these fields help readers understand the procedures different disciplines employ to construct knowledge. This can be through different textual forms and types of challenges people must meet when learning to write within their respective fields. On the rhetoric of science and form, different linguists question the essence of analyzing the written work of scientists. Since past years, it has been common knowledge that scientists report their basic hypothesis and experimental results hence no need for in-depth analysis of their works. However, in the contemporary times, there has been an urgent need to analyze the scientific reports and experiments. This is because of the scientists need to gain followers for a given viewpoint or claim precedence for a discovery. The steps undertaken by scientists to convince their contemporaries and control them through peer review are a significant focus point for developing consensus. Despite this need to analyze scientific writings, some scientists argue and cite the steps taken in reviewing the writings. Science is a field that only few people venture in to and allowing analysis of scientific writings by unqualified people may not be appropriate. Reviewers have little knowledge of the science field hence any analysis made might be faulty. For any successful analysis to be done, reviewers need to understand the underlying science in the first place before any remarks can be made. On the other hand, analysts and reviewers argue that science is a field that is also susceptible to rhetoric. For instance, there have been non-scientists making successful reviews on science writings. The perfect example of such a reviewer is Thomas Kuhn analyzed how scientific paradigms transform as new interpretations of the problematic space and what counts as substantiation within the space take place. Rhetoric refers to the art of public communication and a body of principles pertaining to the field’s practices. Knowledge of rhetoric enables individuals to comprehend communication steps as they pertain to decision making. Rhetoric is a subject of significance since its learning enables individuals to understand the steps of communication which underpin decision making in free societies. Decisions and assumptions of public policy find their background from rhetoric, and so comprehending any of society’s rhetoric will expand people’s knowledge concerning its ideology, laws, customs, and beliefs. In relation to rhetoric of science and form, there is a popular and widespread misconception that methodical communication is conspicuously dissimilar from other customs of unrestricted communication. Science is a master of disguise hence the need for public communication on the findings and experiments carried out in the field. Prior scientists played a vital role in placing science in English society. This was through creating the assumption that science deals with inevitabilities rather than probabilities, demonstrations, and arguments. Scientific communication contains all similar kinds of properties which other fields of communication possess. Majorly, scientists seem to be at the top of frontier knowledge, and most have no concern for those who came before them in any scientific inventions and experiments. The position of stylistic scholars who concentrate in the study of methodical communication is just that science is generally analogous to other forms of public statement. The rhetoric of science is the application of the resources of the rhetorical tradition to the texts, tables, and visuals of the sciences. The introduction of rhetoric of science was over a century ago mainly with studies in science policy. The past quarter of a century saw the transformation from science policy focus on methodical cases to forms more amenable to wide generalization. Science policy was the starting point for rhetoric of science, and the area involved deliberative concerns, which fall within the traditional concerns of those trained in rhetorical analysis (Bassett, 2012). Further in to the analysis of rhetoric of science, the examination narrows to rhetoric of science and form. Since the introduction of science studies experiments and records, the science field has formed a standard way in which there is representation of all scientific reports and findings. Discussing rhetoric of science and form revolves around such issues; the introduction, methods and materials, results, discussion, and conclusion. These are the standard sub-topics which any scientific report should take without which can lead to penalties. In this study paper, we will review the rhetoric of science and forms, exploring each form separately of the scientific reports, findings, and presentation. Through this in-depth analysis, we can be able to understand the rhetoric of science and form and its impact on the English subject. Rhetoric of science is a broad field of inquiry which seeks to comprehend the duty of rhetoric and persuasion within the scientific quest for information. Science, being a broad field, is seen as a field based in the goal pursuit of awareness concerning the world. While many perspectives of science are, by stipulation, dependent on demanding research, other predominant parts of science encompass inducement and oratory. For instance, most scientific projects will call for funding from other bodies and these funds to be awarded to the project, there must some element of persuasion to the donors. Rhetoric of science is also pertinent to the influence that science has on such issues as public policy and various metaphysical debates within diverse scientific fields. Notably, most scientists practice rhetoric of science at different stages of their career, and this seems to lose direction at some point. However, scientists are less likely than sociologists and historians of science to study rhetoric of science as an academic subject. The relevance of rhetoric of science is evident to the social and historical development of various branches of science; hence it is significant field of inquiry (Mitchell, 2010). Rhetoric of science and form- Introduction Rhetoric of science, as earlier defined, seeks to bring comprehension in what people in the scientific field undertake to form science objectives and findings. Rhetoric of science equally makes an inquiry in the steps undertaken by scientists to make and evaluate dissertation as science. Reviewers and critics use five different categories to explain scientific discourse. The most intriguing category of scientific dissertation is symbolic enticement. In this case, it is understood that scientists entice their fellow workmates to share placement in assessing and drawing sense out of situated phenomena. In addition, scientists make connections of the existing framework in the science field. For instance, any research undertaken, be it science or any other field has defined steps in which the researcher will follow. It is standard knowledge that any valid research will encompass decision making, mediation, judgments, and selection. Every scientific experiment requires following the outlined steps irrespective of the category, place, and time of the research. As scientists prepare to undertake a scientific experiment or research, any choices made on what to carry mainly relies on prior models or examples. This implies that the leading informative model or theory at the time of the research will considerably impact the decision making process of which form the research will take. In other words, the earlier set scientific guidelines and rules will significantly attract attention, exploration, and scrutiny, hence controlled research decision making. The approach of scientific changes and ages shows the interpretative framework used in ways of research. These changes influence new strategies in terms of criteria for judgment and exemplary resolutions. In such instances, the underlying obligation for modern scientists is incorporate the past ideologies in to the new strategies. This will enable establishing modern and scientifically proven strategies which will be applicable in any research. In this case, for any modern scientific research to be valid, it must be shown to be consistent with the reached upon framework or to enhance the scientific field in positive ways. However, such approaches to the outlined framework of carrying out researches usually receive negative opinions especially from those scientists in disagreement of the set procedures. Eventually, some people chose not to follow the decided research outline and procedures in protest of one or two things disagreed upon making the entire process flawed. Rhetoric of science and form- Objective In science, outcomes will only be accepted in the event the correct theories or models were put to practice. In this case, some researches will be locked out; irrespective of the impact they may have on the science field since the researches failed to adhere to the recommended guidelines. Another notable stylistic category of science is the field’s situated-ness. Any science related research will comprise of a problem, an issue, or event which attracts or calls for response. Similarly, there has to be a context of audience, opportunities, constrictions, conditions, treaties, and several other factors. These factors play a leading role in shaping and directing of the research and in some cases impact the aftermath of the whole procedure. The responses and attention a scientific problem will receive will determine the range of possible solutions from researches. Since time immemorial, stylistic abilities comprise mainly of successfully working within the defined site and its limitations to achieve one’s set purposes. These may include convincing, analysis, securing funds, and finding a solution to the stated problem. In such settings, it is the expectations of most people that, in any scientific research, there will be a possible outcome within set guidelines (Gross, 1990). Failure to which may render the whole process failed as there is no tangible outcome for the research. All projects, experiments, and researches need to have an objective and in the end give a definite outcome to the audience. The rhetoric of science and form in this case arises when other scientists question the applicability of these approaches. In certain instances, people carry out researches and fail to reach a reasonable solution or outcome, and in this case the entire research fails. However, some critics of the science objectivity argue that the reached outcome, although not helpful to the real objective, maybe relevant to other situations and audiences. The aspect of summary dismissal of scientific outcomes based on the objective stated contravenes the initial essence of research. Research is meant to give direction to a given problem, and the more activities carried out on a problem, the wider the chances of probable outcomes (Xiaosui, 2004). Rhetoric of science and form- Methodology In relation to rhetoric of science and form, with particular interest in methodology, most people have insinuated the lack of standard method. This claims cuts across the philosophy of science yet others view the lack of standard method as being present in all science related reports, examinations, and experiments. To understand the essence and impact of such claims, researchers can compare the approach given by geologists and biologists in any experiment on any similarity or differences. In addition, one can analyze the subject of condensed matter physics with particle physics and organismic biology with molecular biology to appreciate the difference or similarity given to the methodology (Locke, 2001). In general, most scientists and upcoming people in the profession have stuck to the idea that there is a unified and well defined method in presenting any methodology applied in carrying out scientific researches. For this reasons, people who fail to follow this unified and well defined method may as well receive public criticism on their work or receive no identification in the field. The existence of science methodology is a significant rhetorical approach to use particularly when hoping to unite a theory a given scientific eminence or contradict it to another. In the scientific world, the existence of a uniform methodology especially one defined by a short list of clear steps provides a platform for comparison with other earlier carried out researches. This unified methodology allows scientists and critics to dismiss claims made earlier as non-scientific or pseudoscientific (Latour, Bruno & Woolgar, 1979). This in turn has varied consequences such as the decline in funds especially in cases where the objection made to the outcomes of the project convinces the funders. Evidently, these approaches and notions given to scientific methodology lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect in the science world. Therefore, we see a powerful appeal of unique scientific method and even understandable to the individual wanting to divide the world in to scientific and non-scientific fractions. Scientific methodology gives considerable power to the status quo and academia. Most importantly, scientific method gives significance to people who take it upon themselves to advocate the method and use this to demarcate between theories to the cost of those not abiding to the procedures. Scientific methodology, if and when applied consistently, would commit all scientists to having control and command over the undertakings in the science field. However, these positive notions towards scientific methodology have not been fully exploited by the relevant parties (Lessl, 2007). The rhetoric aspect of science is that the same people who advocate for unified and standard methodology do not also undertake their scientific method role. There is urgent need for every scientist to undertake their scientific method role and similarly regularly test to identify whether other practicing scientists adhere to it appropriately. Having rules and regulations of scientific methods only subjects to researches and projects to refutation rather greatly consider the methods and procedures undertaken. The main essence in reviewing scientific tests is to understand the approach given to the research by the scientist rather than the standard procedures set by scientific bodied on methodology (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1996). It is difficult to understand the reason behind a certain methodology set historically govern contemporary scientific matters. This inconsistency on the followers of scientific methods indicates the appeal to the scientific method is indeed a rhetorical strategy. Critics of scientific method argue that in the event a step-by-step method is necessary enough for every procedure, then its application must cover all of science without favors. This approach presents another level of hope in science procedures. However, the downside of all these is that all those so enamored of science that they become scientific and elevate their simplistic approach to status can only do so on their own terms (Budd, 2006). Historically, it is evident that science has worked well since the scientists of the past declined to be bound by what was projected to them and struck out on their own. This led to people venturing in to scientific fields on their personal and new grounds, hence more and better innovations (Taylor, 1996). This approach of selfness in science especially on methodology led to different outcomes with some scientists not being able to achieve anything substantial because of not following the set scientific methodology. On the upside of choosing this path, there has been re-enchantment of the world that those keen on science know only too well. Rhetoric of science and form- Results and Discussions In this case, the set standards in research are the providing of outcomes followed by substantiated discussions on the same. Scientific claims are not only made and judged on the basis of formal logic but also on the criteria of reasonableness which other fields may view in the research. For instance, matters which relate to reasonableness, relevance, precision, and warranted-ness are significant during the discussions and results stages of any research. According to the set guidelines of carrying out researches, the criteria employed should comprise of problem-solving, evaluative, exemplary, and ethical steps in presenting the information (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1996). All scientific processes have been categorized under problem solving researches hence the need for the outcomes to contain solutions. These criteria, in a sensible world, are subject to changes and modification. However, rhetoric of science and form presents a situation in which these criteria are standard and any changes made may alter the whole process. Most scientific results follow a given outline in which to report and making even the slightest changes to these guidelines interferes with the scientific process (O'Neill, 1998). Science is an ever-growing field which should create room for development and growth. Science is one field which has been responsible for inventions and creativity. The rhetoric aspect of this is the restrictions witnessed in the guidelines and rules scientists have to adhere to while carrying out researches. These seem to be limiting the extent to which invention can take in the science field. Restricting the framework of results and discussions may hinder any chances of invention and creativity (Gross, 1990). Scientific part of discussion and results requires that it takes place in relation to the objective or problem initially stated. Discussing outside the box is considered a crime in the science world. To many critics, this should not be the case as it seems to constrict evidence of in-depth research. On the other hand, broader aspects given results and discussion encourage more invention and research hence growth of the science field. Conclusion It is significant to note the application of science does not hinder the rigorous experimental basis of most forms of scientific inquiry. All scientists need to remember that experimentation is the backbone of scientific practice, and in this case, rhetoric of science is employed to convince others of these facts. For instance, rhetoric of science and form plays the role of convincing others of the correctness and the significance of the outcomes reached in any research. For instance, a research team may identify an essential issue in the course of their work which will be applicable at international levels. In such instances, there is need for defined work framework which will enable people to accept the outcomes. Science is a way of expressing real things hence influenced by language and other symbols. These languages and symbols need to be consistent and widely accepted for the reached outcomes to make sense to the future users of the information. References Bassett, D. R. (2012). Notions of Identity, Society, and Rhetoric in a Speech Code of Science among Scientists and Engineers Working in Nanotechnology. Science Communication. 34(1), 115-159. Budd, J. M. (2006). What We Say About Research: Rhetoric And Argument In Library And Information Science. Library Quarterly. 76 (2), 220-240. Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (1996). Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Gross, A. G. (1990). The Rhetoric of Science. Harvard UP. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: U of Chicago P. . Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lessl, T. M. (2007). The Culture of Science and the Rhetoric of Scientism: From Francis Bacon to the Darwin Fish. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 93(2),123-149. Locke, S. (2001). Sociology and the public understanding of science: from rationalization to rhetoric. British Journal of Sociology. 52(1),1-18. Mitchell G. (2010). Switch-Side Debating Meets Demand-Driven Rhetoric Of Science. Rhetoric & Public Affairs. 13(1), 95-120. O'Neill, J. (1998). Rhetoric, science, and philosophy. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 28(2), 205- 210. Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science: a rhetoric of demarcation. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. Xiaosui X. (2004). The 1923 Scientistic Campaign and Dao-Discourse: A Cross-Cultural Study of the Rhetoric of Science. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 90 (4), 469-494. Read More