Course Description
An investigation of the discursive underpinnings of scientific inquiry, both in its technical and public aspects. May examine the social construction of scientific knowledge, science's interfaces with political and cultural influences, and the various ways that scientific knowledge is appropriated in public life.
Athena Title
RHET SCI
Prerequisite
[(SPCM 8200 or COMM 8200) and (SPCM 8300 or COMM 8300)] or permission of department
Semester Course Offered
Offered every even-numbered year.
Grading System
A - F (Traditional)
Course Objectives
1. To build an appreciation of the societal factors that typically have bearing upon scientific inquiry: public constructions of the value and purposes of knowledge, competing notions of science’s bearing upon the public good, the interface of philosophical inquiry with their technical application in science. 2. To become acquainted in some detail with the field of science studies, in particular the work of sociologists, philosophers, and historians as it bears upon a rhetorical understanding of science. 3. To learn the concepts and vocabularies of key theorists and critics who have addressed the place of science in culture. 4. To demonstrate a mastery of this literature through a critical case study in the rhetoric of science area.
Topical Outline
Unit 1: The Rhetorical Character of Science and its Cultural Roots The first set of readings here should help you to develop a sense of the state of the field. Without something like a textbook overview it is really impossible to do this, so you’ll have to be patient and just take on faith that some of these ideas, though seemingly impenetrable at first, will come clear in the end. The Hall and Rattansi essays sample the vast broad scholarship in the sociology of science that antedates this specialty within rhetoric. But they will give you a sense of the social features of scientific rhetoric in more of a developmental context. Topics and Readings: The nature of rhetoric and the nature of science: McMullan, 1992; Farrell 1976 PDF; Campbell and BensonPDF; Weimer. The Public Character of Science: Knorr-Cetina; Shils. The Development of the Scientific Culture: Hall; Rattansi. Unit 2: Social and Institutional Characteristics No institution is an island. Throughout modern history scientific communities have perpetuated their existence by building a variety of relationships with other cultures and institutions. This unit is concerned with some of the ways scientists have endeavored to retain institutional autonomy while also building crucial ties to the larger world. The notion of demarcation here was originally a philosophical program, (as you’ll see in the Lakatos transcript) concerned with isolating the features of inquiry that set science apart from other enterprises of learning. The collapse of this program in the 1970s coincided with the rise of interest in this subject by sociologists like Gieryn and subsequently various rhetoricians. Topics and Readings: The Rhetoric of Demarcation: Lakatos, Gieryn, 1983; Douglas; Taylor, 1991; Lessl, 1988; Goodnight, 1982. The Scientific Ethos/Scientific Norms and Roles: Prelli; Lessl, 1989PDF; Lyne and HowePDF; ConstantinidesPDF; Gross, 1989PDF; Mulkay, 1975; Larson. Science and Religion: Campbell, 1975PDF; Lessl, 1993PDF, 2002PDF,2003PDF; Moore, chapter 1; Jaki. Feminism and Science: Soper; Keller, Martin, JohnsonPDF. Unit 3: Persuasive Aspects of Scientific Inquiry The investigation of nature by scientists is itself a rhetorical activity that can be fruitfully subjected to critical analysis. This unit will involve the examination of the rhetoric of scientific inquiry itself–the most programmatic area within the rhetoric of science. Topics and Readings: Scientific Invention and Style: Campbell, 1986PDF, 1994; ZagackiPDF; Zagacki and Keith; Tietge. The Rhetoric of Scientific Assent: Pera, 1991, 1992; Lessl, 2003PDF; Czubaroff; Gross, 1988PDF, McMullin, 1991; Shea. Unit 4: Ideological and Narrative Issues Like other groups scientists have developed their own way of accounting for their existence. Certain constants in the scientific ideology and in its corresponding narrative products can be traced through discourses spanning several centuries. There are both priestly (emic) and bardic (etic) ideologies and narratives of science. The literature on the bardic varieties is much larger, and so much of what is listed here represents that perspective. Two of the readings here are from classic works of literature rather than scholarship. One is a chapter form Henry Adams’ The Education of Henry Adams which provided a contemporary perspective on the emerging positivist world view around the time that Darwinism was first becoming known. The second is the utopian novel New Atlantis by Francis Bacon, which will give you some sense of the narrative thinking that dominated science in the seventeenth century. Topics and Readings: Science as an Element of World view: AdamsPDF; Kaufer; Lewis, chapter 1; Rubin; Weaver, chapters 8-9; McCloskey. Narratives of Science: BaconPDF; Brush; Lessl, 1999PDF,1996PDF, 1999; Mulkey, 1996. The Rhetoric of Science in Journalism and Public Controversy: Taylor and ConditPDF; Gieryn 1992; FahnestockPDF; McCall; Farrell and GoodnightPDF; Larson; Curtis; Dunwoody and Ryan. Science in Science Fiction: Kershner; WilliamsPDF; Lessl2005PDF; Rushing and FrentzPDF. Unit 5: The Rhetoric of Science in Perspective A few essays of some importance have been written in an effort to reflect on and define what the area of inquiry defined by the rhetoric of science should mean. Topics and Readings: Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Science: Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey; Peters and Rothenbuhler. Meta-Issues: Gaonkar; Keith and Cherwitz; CharlandPDF.