This article contributes to the development of a rhetorical approach to the public understanding of science or science literacy. It is argued that rhetoric promises an alternative approach to deficit models that treat people as faulty scientists. Some tensions in the relevant rhetorical literature need resolution. These center on the application to science of an Aristotelian conception of rhetorical reasoning as enthymematic, without breaking from the Platonic/Aristotelian division between technical and public spheres. The former opens science to the potential of public critique; the latter closes this, effectively reinstating a deficit model. Gross’s writings are used to bring this point out sharply. A resolution is proposed, building on a view of rhetoric as socially constitutive and leading to a conception of public understanding as witcraft. Here, Billig’s rhetorical psychology provides the basis for reconfiguring the enthymeme in a manner that construes the division between spheres as itself rhetorically constituted. Creationism is used to provide brief illustration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antaki, C.1994. Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London: Sage Ltd.
2.
Aristotle. 1946. The works of Aristotle translated into English: Volume XI. Rhetorica. Translated by W. R. Roberts. London: Oxford University Press.
3.
Ashmore, M., G. Myers, and J. Potter. 1995. Discourse, rhetoric, reflexivity: Seven days in the library. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 321-342. London: Sage Ltd.
4.
Barnes, B.1974. Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
5.
Barnes, B., D. Bloor, and J. Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.
6.
Bauer, M., K. Petkova, and P. Boyadjieva. 2000. Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the “science war.”Science, Technology, and Human Values25:30-51.
7.
Billig, M.1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. 2d ed.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Billig, M.1997. From codes to utterances: Cultural studies, discourse and psychology. In Cultural studies in question, edited by M. Ferguson and P. Golding, 205-226. London: Sage Ltd.
9.
Billig, M., S. Condor, D. Edwards, M. Gane, D. Middleton and A. Radley. 1988. Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London: Sage Ltd.
10.
Campbell, P. N.1975. The personae of scientific discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech61:391-405.
11.
Collins, H. M., and T. Pinch. 1993. The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Durant, J., G. Evans, and G. Thomas. 1992. Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science!1:161-182.
13.
Farrell, T. B., and G. T. Goodnight. 1981. Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communications Monographs48:271-300.
14.
Fuller, S.1998. The first global cyberconference on public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science 7:329-341.
15.
Gieryn, T. F.1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Gieryn, T. F., G. M. Bevins, and S. C. Zehr. 1985. Professionalization of American scientists: Public science in the creation/evolution trials. American Sociological Review50:392-409.
17.
Gilbert, G. N., and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Gregory, J., and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.
19.
Gross, A. G.1994a. Is a rhetoric of science policy possible?Social Epistemology8:273-280.
20.
Gross, A. G.1994b. The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science3:3-23.
21.
Gross, A. G.1996. The rhetoric of science. 2d ed.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Habermas, J.1984. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Translated by T. McCarthy. London: Heinemann.
23.
Habermas, J.1987. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system, a critique of functionalist reason. Translated by T. McCarthy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
24.
Harris, R. A., ed. 1997. Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Heritage, J.1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
26.
Hess, D. J.1993. Science in the new age: The paranormal, its defenders and debunkers, and American culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
27.
Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Jasanoff, S., G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, eds. 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. London: Sage Ltd.
29.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Latour, B.1993. We have never been modern. Translated by C. Porter. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
31.
Lessl, T. M.1988. Heresy, orthodoxy, and the politics of science. Quarterly Journal of Speech74:18-34.
32.
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M.1992. About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public Understanding of Science1:17-21.
33.
Locke, S.1997. Review of C. A. Taylor, Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Public Understanding of Science6:429-430.
34.
Locke, S.1999a. Constructing “The Beginning”: Discourses of creation science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Locke, S.1999b. Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science8:75-92.
36.
Locke, S.2001. Sociology and the public understanding of science: From rationalization to rhetoric. British Journal of Sociology52: 1-18.
37.
Lyne, J.1983. Ways of going public: The projection of expertise in the sociobiology controversy. In Argument in transition: Proceedings of the Third SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, edited by D. Zarefsky, M. Sillars, and J. Rhodes, 400-415. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
38.
Lyne, J., and H. F. Howe. 1997. “Punctuated equilibria”: Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. In Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies, edited by R. A. Harris, 69-86. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
McGee, M. C., and J. R. Lyne. 1987. What are nice folks like you doing in a place like this? Some entailments of treating knowledge claims rhetorically. In The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs, edited by J. S. Nelson, A. Megill and D. N. McCloskey, 381-406. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
40.
Michael, M.1992. Lay discourses of science: Science-in-general, science-in-particular, and self. Science, Technology, and Human Values17:313-333.
41.
Michael, M.1996. Ignoring science: Discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, edited by A. Irwin and B. Wynne, 108-125. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Mulkay, M.1985. The word and the world: Explorations in the form of sociological analysis. London: Allen & Unwin.
43.
Myers, G.1990. Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
44.
Nash, W.1989. Rhetoric: The wit of persuasion. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
45.
Nelkin, D.1982. The creation controversy: Science or scripture in the schools. London: W. W. Norton & Co.
46.
Nelkin, D., ed. 1992. Controversy: Politics of technical decisions. 3d ed.London: Sage Ltd.
47.
Potter, J.1996. Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage Ltd.
48.
Prelli, L. J.1989. A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
49.
Rosevear, D.1995. The first seven days of the universe. Pamphlet 299. Portsmouth, UK: Creation Science Movement.
50.
Royal Society. 1985. The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.
51.
Shapin, S.1994. A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Taylor, C. A.1996. Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
53.
Toumey, C. 1996, November. Public cultures of science. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association, 95th Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
54.
Waddell, C.1994a. Perils of a modern Cassandra: Rhetorical aspects of public indifference to the population explosion. Social Epistemology8:221-237.
55.
Waddell, C.1994b. Rhetoric of environmental policy: From critical practice to the social construction of theory. Social Epistemology8:289-310.
56.
Waddell, C.1997. The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study in the rhetoric of science policy. In Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies, edited by R. A. Harris, 127-149. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
Walzer, A. E., and A. G. Gross. 1994. Positivists, postmodernists, Aristotelians, and the Challenger disaster. College English56:420-433.
58.
White, J. B.1987. The arts of cultural and communal life. In The rhetoric of the human sciences: Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs, edited by J. S. Nelson, A. Megill and D. N. McCloskey, 298-318. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
59.
Willard, C. A. 1985. The science of values and the value of science. In Argument and social practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, edited by J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, and G. B. Walker, 435-444. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
60.
Wooffitt, R.1992. Telling tales of the unexpected: The organization of factual discourse. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
61.
Wynne, B.1992a. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1:281-304.
62.
Wynne, B.1992b. Public understanding of science research: New horizons or hall of mirrors?Public Understanding of Science1:37-43.
63.
Wynne, B.1996. May the sheepsafely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne, 44-83. London: Sage Ltd.
64.
Zappen, J. P.1994. The rhetoric of science and the challenge of post-liberal democracy. Social Epistemology8:261-271.
65.
Ziman, J.1968. Public knowledge: An essay concerning the social dimension of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Ziman, J.1978. Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Ziman, J.1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values16:99-105.
68.
Ziman, J.2000. Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
