76-476/876: RHETORIC OF SCIENCE

COURSE SYLLABUS
Carnegie Mellon University
English Department
Fall 2011
Office: (412) 268-9765

James Wynn
145M Baker Hall
jwynn@andrew.cmu.edu
Office Hours: T 3:30-4:30

Course Description
Though rhetoric of science can be traced back to Philip Wanders 1976 article
The Rhetoric of Science, the field came into its own in the 1980s with the work
of Joseph Campbell and was expanded in the early 1990s through the efforts of
Alan Gross, Jeanne Fahnestock, Carolyn Miller and others. Since then, the field
has become a vibrant new area of research in the discipline of rhetoric.
Rhetoricians of science study various aspects of science including the importance
of language and argument to the development of scientific knowledge, the use of
rhetorical argument in science, and the process of communication within and
scientific disciplines as well as between scientists and the public.
In this course, we take the broad view of the rhetoric of science. We will examine
many facets of scientific communication including scientific audiences, visuals,
and conventions for argument. By exploring these elements of science we will
begin to develop the sophisticated understanding of scientific communication and
argumentation necessary for undertaking complex rhetorical analyses.
Specifically, we will be driven by questions such as:

How do scientists argue their case with one another?

How is scientific information and argument transformed when it is
accommodated for popular arguments?
How does the social and historical context in which science is done shape
the way that science is communicated and/or argued?
In what ways do the language and style shape scientific knowledge and
communication?
What argumentative solutions can visuals supply in science and what
argumentative problems?

Specific Course Objectives

The course was designed as a research seminar, which means that you will
develop a research interest and pursue that interest in a final paper. To facilitate
this goal, you will learn how to analyze the persuasive mechanisms of a scientific
text or activity, as well as how to place ideas and arguments in a social, historical,

and intellectual context. The course assignments are designed as installments

leading up to the final paper.
Because of its interdisciplinary nature, this course will familiarize you with some
of the most recent ideas in a number of fields including rhetoric, history of
science, philosophy of science, sociology of science, and communication studies.
By considering what rhetoric of science means, we will also try to mend fences
with the hard sciences and to gain the right to speak up in conversations that
sometimes tend to leave out humanists, that is, conversations about truth, reality,
and objectivity. As rhetoricians, we will attempt to explain what it means to
communicate ideas persuasively, assess evidence, establish authority, and build
communities. At the same time, we will attempt to further our understanding of
the traditionally rhetorical concepts, such as persuasion, audience, evidence,
authority, and community.

Required Texts (See the appended Bibliography for a list of all of the readings
for the course as well as other readings relevant to the rhetoric of science)
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1996.
Leah Ceccarelli. Shaping Science with Rhetoric. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2001. (Not in the bookstore. Order online)

Grading
Participation

5%

Assignments

65%

Final paper

30%

Participation (5%)
The participation portion of your grade depends on two separate components.
Attendance (max. 21pts.) You are permitted a maximum of four missed
classes for the semester. If you remain at four or under four absences, you will
receive all twenty five points of the attendance grade. If you go above four, your
score in this category will drop 7 pts. for each additional absence until it reaches
0.
Absences are calculated by the lack of your signature on the attendance sheet
for a particular class day. Remember it is your responsibility throughout the
semester to sign the attendance sheet. I am not responsible for your forgetting to
sign it on a given class period. In addition to counting absences against your
attendance grade, I will also be assessing the times when you are late to class.

Two lates equal one absence. Being habitually late to class could easily put you
over the limit for absences affecting this portion of your attendance grade.
Quantity and Quality of Class Participation (max. 29pts.) Throughout
the semester, I will observe the quantity and quality of your participation in the
course. This grade reflects my assessment of the frequency of your participation
in in-class discussion and how productive/useful your comments, questions, etc.
are in the advancement of the topics covered in class.
Assignments (65%)
Throughout the semester you will be required to do assignments which will help
you engage with the material in the course or to prepare you for completing the
final paper. Because these assignments make up the bedrock of the courses
knowledge and work, they are also the bulk of the courses grade. Assignments
will include but may not be limited to:

Practice Analysis #1 (Conventions of Scientific Writing) (10tps.)

o Goal 1: To understand and identify the conventions of scientific
writing
o Goal 2: To practice textual analysis for argument structure

Practice Analysis #2 (Accommodation) (10pts.)

o Goal 1: To understand the transformation of scientific discourse as it
moves through the process of accommodation
o Goal 2: To consider how these transformations transform scientific
argument and ideas

Paper Topic Proposal (20pts.)

o Goal 1: To identify a potential research question for the final paper
o Goal 2: To identify primary and secondary sources which might be
useful for your project
o Goal 3: To use an appropriate scholarly format for citing sources

Rhetorical Analysis (30pts.)

o Goal 1: To advance a tentative thesis based on rhetorical analysis
o Goal 2: To rhetorically analyze the primary text for your final paper

Rough Draft (30pts.)

o Goal 1: To advance a refined research question and thesis
o Goal 2: To identify additional sources for conceptual and
methodological support of your argument
o Goal 3: To synthesize primary source analysis with secondary source
materials to make a coherent and compelling case for your thesis

Reading Responses (30pts.)

o Goal 1: To engage thoughtfully with the course readings
o Goal 2: To facilitate class discussion about important topics
relevant to the course
o Goal 3: To explore other readings germane to the subjects in class

All assignments will be collected on the day that they are marked due on the
syllabus unless otherwise stated. I will accept no late assignments. If you know
that you will miss class for whatever reason, please email me your assignment
before class meets on the day it is due or send it with a classmate.
A hardcopy of the assignment must be turned in at the beginning of the class on
the day it is due. All assignments must be word processed in 12pt Times New
Roman font. I will accept no handwritten assignments. All assignments must
include your name.
Final Paper (30%)
In the final paper, you will choose and apply a method(s) of rhetorical analysis to answer
a specific question about a particular topic related to rhetoric and science. The point of
much of the course homework is to move you slowly towards this goal. The following are
a few examples of topics which would be suitable for a final paper.

Analyze a policy debate in which scientific arguments play a part and discuss their
role in persuasion.
Examine a scientific argument in both professional and popular publications and
discuss the differences in presentation and argument strategy.
Evaluate an argument in which non-scientists are employing scientific language,
form, or strategies for argumentation in order to appear scientific. Explain the
effectiveness and or the rationale for this particular approach.
Investigate a case of scientific fraud or hoax and discuss why the intended audience
might have originally been persuaded by a particular argument and what encouraged
them to later reject the argument as spurious.
Choose a particular historical scientific argument or debate and examine the
persuasive strategies in the debate and why the might or might not have been
successful with the audience for the debate.
Explore the role of visuals in making a particular scientific argument. Describe what
particular role the visuals played in the argument and how they helped support the
conclusions of the scientific arguer(s).
Analyze a recent priority debate or a theoretical dispute between scientists or groups
of scientists. Explain the topic being disputed as well as the strategies used by each
side to promote their position.
Investigate a situation in which scientists make their case to a nonscientific audience.
Explain what they hope to achieve by arguing to this audience and what changes if
any they make in their argument strategies to address their lay audience.
Examine linguistic elements in a series of scientific texts and draw conclusions about
the importance of particular linguistic features in advancing the arguments in those
texts.

Compare the conventions for presenting arguments in two different fields or describe
a case were the conventions of a particular field have been subverted in order to make
an argument. Discuss how the conventional differences help advance a particular
position.
Explore the role of culture in scientific persuasion. Examine a case in which
scientific arguments have been culturally adapted in order to facilitate identification
and thereby persuasion.
Examine educational science materials and identify/compare what their opinions
about the scientific argument or style are. Discuss what these opinions tell us about
the values of science and scientific educators for a particular group at a particular
time.

Please feel free to meet with me to explore potential topics. All written work should
look professional: it must be printed and typed with a readable processor and printer,
and carefully proofread.
CONFERENCES AND APPOINTMENTS
I will be available for consultations from 3:30-4:30 on Tuesdays on a first come
first serve basis. You can also email or call me to set up an appointment on other
days of the week.

Note: I reserve the right to make changes in this syllabus. We will discuss
the changes in class and it is your responsibility to make the necessary
corrections.
Schedule of Readings
Section 1: What is Rhetoric? What is Rhetoric of Science?
8/27

What is Rhetoric?
Aristotle Rhetoric (19-34)
Michael Gilbert The Delimitation of Argument in Coalescent
Argumentation (28-41)

8/29

What is Rhetoric of Science?

Randy Allen Harris Introduction to Landmark Essays in the Rhetoric of
Science (xi-xxix).
Jeanne Fahnestock The Rhetoric of the Natural Sciences (175-90) from
the Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies

Section 2: The Conventions of Scientific Writing

9/3

Conventions of the Scientific Argument in the Research Report

John Swales Research Articles in English Genre Analysis (137-161,
166-176) [You can skim from the bottom of 148 to 153].

o Pay special attention to the diagram on page 141!

Rignot and Kanagaratnam Changes in the Velocity of the Greenland Ice
Sheet Science (2006).

9/5

The Language of Science

M.A.K. Halliday and J.R. Martin Some Grammatical Problems in
Scientific English (69-85)
How to Write a Paper from Nature accessed 2011
Due: Practice Analysis #1 (Conventions of Scientific Writing)
o Auke Jan Ispeert et al. From Swimming to Walking with a
Salamander Robot Driven by a Spinal Cord Model Science 2007

9/10

Scientific Accommodation
Jeanne Fahnestock Accommodating Science Written Communication
15.3 (1998): 330-350
The Stases (65-68) Introduction to Academic Writing
Michael Lemonick Has the Meltdown Begun? Time (2006)

9/12

Science and the Media

Jane Gregory and Steve Miller Media Issues in the Public Understanding
of Science Science in Public (104-131).
Geoff Brumfiel Supplanting the Old Media? Nature

Section 3: Scientific Style and Invention

9/17

Analogical Argument
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca The New Rhetoric Analogy (371-398)
[Note: you can focus your reading about analogy in the New Rhetoric to
sections 82, 85, and 86. I have included all the sections for those interested
in analogy]
Due: Practice Analysis #2 (Accommodation)
o Elizabeth Pennisi Robot Suggests How the First Land Animals
Got Walking Science 2007

9/19

Analogy in Scientific Rhetoric

Joseph Little The Role of Analogy in George Gamows Derivation of
Drop Theory TCQ (2008): 220-238

9/24

Figures and Tropes

Jeanne Fahnestock "Incrementum and Gradatio" Rhetorical Figures in
Science (86-121). Talk about Tropes and Figures.

9/26

Interdisciplinary Inspirationals
Leah Ceccarelli The Initiator of the Evolutionary Synthesis (Preface and
1-30) from Shaping Science with Rhetoric

10/1

Interdisciplinary Inspirationals
Leah Ceccarelli Chapters 3 and 8 (31-58, 157-67) in Shaping Science with
Rhetoric

Section 4: Scientific Argument

10/3

Science and the Production of Knowledge and Argument

Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar Laboratory Life Chapter 2 (43-90)
Discuss Topic Proposal Assignment

10/8

Appeals to Authority
Douglas Walton Appeals to Authority in Informal Logic (209-228, 23245)
Stephen Hall At Fault? Nature 2011.

10/10 Scientific Ethos

Judy Segal and Alan Richardson Scientific Authority: Ethos, Authorship,
and Trust in Sciences (137-42).
Reiner Grundmann Climategate and the Scientific Ethos Science
Technology and Human Values (67-93)
Eli Kintisch Stolen Emails Turn Up Heat on Climate Change Rhetoric
Science 2009
Climategate Emails
10/15 Priority Disputes
Alan Gross Do Disputes over Priority Tell us Anything about Science?
Science in Context (1998) (161-179)
Carol Reeves Owning A Virus: A Rhetoric of Scientific Discovery
Accounts Rhetoric Review (1992) (321-36).
10/17 Pathetic Appeals
Craig Wadell The Role of Pathos in the Decision Making Process
Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science (127-149)
Due: Topic Proposal
10/22 Can Visuals Be Arguments?
David Fleming Can Pictures Be Arguments? (11-22)
David Birdsell and Leo Groarke Outlines of a Theory of Visual
Argument (103-113)
Find a scientific visual that you believe makes an argument and bring it to
class.
10/24 Visuals in Science
Cambrosio et al. Arguing with Images: Paulings Theory of Antibody
Formation in Visual Cultures of Science (153-193).

10/29 Scientific Paradigms (Pre-paradigmatic and Paradigmatic Science)

Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Preface and
Chapters 1-3 (vii-34)
Discuss: Rhetorical Analysis Assignment
10/31 Scientific Paradigms (The Transition to Paradigmatic Science)
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chapters 4-7 (3576)
11/5

Scientific Paradigms (How Paradigms Change)

Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chapters 8-9 (77110)
Due: Rhetorical Analysis

11/7

Paradigmatic Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chapters 10 and 12
(111-135, 144-159)

11/12 Science and Mathematics

James Wynn Arithmetic of the Species Rhetorica 27.1 (2009): 76-100
Discuss: Paper Rough Drafts
11/14 Quasi-Scientific Argument
Leah Ceccarelli Manufactured Scientific Controversy (195-228)
11/19 Scientists as Advocates
Blockstein How to Lose your Political Virginity (91-96)
Jean Goodwin What is Responsible Advocacy? (151-161)
11/21 No class (I will be away at NCA)
Work on final Paper Rough Drafts
11/26 Wrap up
Due: Paper Rough Drafts
11/28 Thanksgiving (No Class)
12/03 Paper Conferences
12/05 Paper conferences
12/10 Due: Final Papers by 5:00 p.m.