Intro: Trends in the Rhetoric of Science

Why do people think the way they do about this nebulous field we call science? Why do opinions about advancements in technology feel so polarized, so aggressively dichotomous? Why, in my Technology and Human Communication class (COMS 317), did one girl wax rhapsodic about how cool and useful Facebook’s “suggested posts” (ads) were, while many of the other expressed opinions were extremely fearful and almost entirely disapproving of that kind of data collection? Why is IBM’s Watson either a “computer overlord” or a potential literal savior of mankind, as articles from The Atlantic, Fast Company, and The Washington Post (the first news articles, mind you, to appear when Google searching “IBM Watson”) would have you believe?

Because words! But, actually. Rhetoric is my thing, and I love being a rhetorician-to-be, but it still amazes me how much the way we talk about something affects the way we perceive it. It doesn’t really matter what something “objectively” is—and I’m going to take this moment to step away from the can of epistemological worms that just opened up—if people perceive it a different way, because the way people perceive things will ultimately determine how they behave towards that thing. I could/should go into that more, but in the wise words of Celeste Condit, “I have neither the space nor the interest to give here a full proof of the relationship of rhetoric to objectivity presumed by this study. … (though the theoretical under-pinnings [sic] of my perspective are available elsewhere: see Condit, ‘Crafting Virtue’ and ‘Kenneth Burke’; Railsback, ‘Beyond Rhetorical Relativism’; and others working with related assumptions, e.g., Bernstein; Laudan ‘Explaining Success’)” (84). Was that a smidge shortcut-y? Yeah, probably; but social construction versus realism isn’t what I’m here to talk about. I’m here to talk about how and why rhetoric constructs a world wherein public perceptions about science and technology have become either extremely optimistic or pessimistic, with seemingly not much in between.

A friend of mine once told me that scientific reports, while certainly not always in-credible, can often be biased or otherwise influenced in ways that are not always disclosed when informing the public of a report's findings. This friend is John Oliver (who strictly speaking is not a "friend," but I've watched enough segments of Last Week Tonight in the last month for me to count him as one anyway). While he, strictly speaking again, is not a scholar or a scientist, there are several who agree with him.

António Fernando Cascais writes that media coverage of science has become more about reporting “breakthroughs” that “represent scientific activity by its products… [confine] the scientific processes to the attainment of final and cumulative results… [and] exclusively [isolate] the results which are evaluated a posteriori as being successful applications.” Scientific reporting, he argues, has become more about the fantastical results that such breakthroughs can bring, such as the age-old “curing cancer,” and less about the scientific process, which involves a lot of methodological rigor and error (“The rhetoric of breakthroughs”).

Rick Borchelt, the Director of Communications and Public Affairs for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science (aka “man who has a 16-word job title”), spoke at a National Academy of Science Workshop on Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication, and “expressed concern that ‘the science communication model has moved from a [Public Information Officer] model to a marketing and institutional advancement model’” (Vernon 5). Similar to what Oliver and Cascais propose, Borchelt is referring to the seeming shift in scientific reporting from dissemination of “truth” to dissemination of “truth that somebody else paid me very, VERY handsomely to find.”

It’s important to consider these structural/institutional changes/barriers in scientific reporting when going forward because of their significant impact on, by proxy, public perceptions of science. These are the more general patterns in the rhetoric of science writ large, but the following blog posts will be looking at more specific rhetorical theories, particularly how they position science or technology as being something to be very optimistic or pessimistic about.

References (listed in order of reference)
Dignan, Larry. "IBM's Watson Victorious in Jeopardy; Our New Computer Overlord?" ZD Net. CBS Interactive, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. <http://www.zdnet.com/article/ibms-watson-victorious-in-jeopardy-our-new-computer-overlord/>.

Cohn, Jonathan. "The Robot Will See You Now." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, Mar. 2013. Web. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/03/the-robot-will-see-you-now/309216/>.

Gertner, Jon. "IBM's Watson Is Learning Its Way To Saving Lives." Fast Company. Fast Company & Inc, 15 Oct. 2012. Web. <http://www.fastcompany.com/3001739/ibms-watson-learning-its-way-saving-lives>.

Cha, Ariana Eunjang. "The Human Upgrade: Watson’s next Feat? Taking on Cancer." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 June 2015. Web. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/06/27/watsons-next-feat-taking-on-cancer/>.

Condit, Celeste. "How Bad Science Stays That Way: Brain Sex, Demarcation, and the Status of Truth in the Rhetoric of Science." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 26.4 (1996): 83-109. Web.

LastWeekTonight. “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Scientific Studies (HBO).” YouTube. YouTube, 8 May 2016. Web.

Cascais, António Fernando. "The rhetoric of breakthroughs in the communication of science." The Pantaneto Forum 17 (2005). Web.

Vernon, Jamie. "Leveraging Rhetoric For Improved Communication Of Science: A Scientist's Perspective." Poroi: An Interdisciplinary Journal Of Rhetorical Analysis & Invention 10.1 (2014): 1-6. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web.