Rhetoric and Clinical Science: Maximizing Rationality Within Post-Justificationist Knowledge

Abstract

Scott Lilienfeld wrote about science and metascience and cared deeply about clearly understanding the quality of science. Lilienfeld criticized obscurantist language such as “neurobabble” and poorly defined terms such as “microaggressions.” Science is a social institution that involves communication through language. This article presents a rhetorical analysis of science. The study of the linguistic dimension of science leads to an analysis of science as rhetoric, that is, the multiple methods of persuasion employed by scientists for multiple audiences and consumers. In addition, the failure of justificationist epistemologies to capture what occurs in knowledge generation also leads to the view that science has a rhetorical dimension in which knowledge-generating processes remain rational but nonjustificationist. In this article, I argue that rhetoric provides a rich additional dimension for criticism in clinical psychological science to identify error. Engaging the rhetorical dimension of science can therefore make science more rational, not less. Some major tropes used in psychological journals are identified and criticized.

Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles

“…The descriptions of the persuasive communication devices we have identified are necessarily brief as there are 22 of them overall. We are also certain that this is an incomplete list (see, for example, O’Donohue, 2023 , for a discussion of the use of rhetoric in clinical science). However, we firmly believe that highlighting these issues and encouraging discussion around them is part of the solution.…”

Current Issues and Future Directions in Clinical Psychological Science: An Introduction to the Special Issue Honoring the Life and Legacy of Scott O. Lilienfeld

“…In the first article, O’Donohue (2023) followed Professor Lilienfeld’s contributions and interests in gaining a deeper understanding of clinical science by examining the recent work on the role of persuasion in science. The majority of this work falls under the rubric of “the rhetoric of science.” Although rhetoric can have negative connotations, the way this construct is used in science studies is more neutral (i.e., as the study of persuasion in science).…”

“…In the sixth article, O’Donohue and Fisher (2023) examined a broad issue that concerned Dr. Lilienfeld—fairness. He was always scrupulously fair in giving his intellectual opponents their due.…”

Censoring and punishing free speech is unethical: Reply to Jackson (2022) and Smith (2022).

“…In the first, she argues that there is insufficient evidence for problems occurring regarding free speech for psychologists and there is no need to amend the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code; American Psychological Association, 2017). 1 Jackson’s argument is problematic for three reasons: (a) She ignores evidence presented in our article of psychologists being directly involved in free speech controversies such as those involving Professors J. Michael Bailey, Linda Gottfredson, and Kenneth Zucker, among others (see O’Donohue & Fisher, in press, for further examples). In addition, the surveys we cite indicate that there is a widespread and significant chilling effect on speech across a variety of individuals (thus including psychologists and psychology students) and contexts.…”