The Public Understanding of Science—A Rhetorical Invention

Abstract

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.

Ethics of livestock farming? : who cares?

“…Technology assessment, and, later, constructive technology assessment, recognized the importance of involving users in the innovation process to encourage integration of new technologies in users' everyday lives (Rip et al, 1995;Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2003). The case has been made that technologists need to study responses to science in order to learn from them (Levitt, 2003) and to discover missing propositions in their own reasoning (Locke, 2002).…”

Science communication in Sub‐Saharan AFrica: The case of GMOs

“…Instead, the term is used loosely to encompass a range of activities that involve experts, policy-makers, and general public that will ultimately shape the usage of new biotechnologies through their acceptance, rejection and modification according to local needs, fears and values. an interactive science communication framework which seeks to overcome what has become known as the 'deficit model' of science communication, whereby the public is expected simply to follow the advice of scientific experts (Locke, 2002;Rose, 2003;Sturgis and Allum, 2004;Wright and Nerlich, 2006;Wynne, 2008). Arguably, the limitations of this approach to science communication and associated science policy making have been most evident in the discussion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within agriculture in Europe (especially the UK), which have resulted in a deadlock between those 'for' and 'against' GMOs and associated genetic technologies (Cook et al, 2006;Henderson et al, 2007;Augoustinos et al, 2009).…”

Fantastically reasonable: ambivalence in the representation of science and technology in super-hero comics

“…Super-hero comics are a valuable if neglected focus for research in popular science, drawing on science in ways that are far more sophisticated than some earlier studies suggested (contrast Basalla, 1976, with Oehlert, 1995. Like other forms of fictional representation of science (Goldman, 1989;Lambourne et al, 1990;Haynes, 1994;Jancovich, 1996;Skal, 1998;van Dijck, 1998;Turney, 1998;Vieth, 2001), super-hero comics deal with questions about the social and cultural meaning of science that are constituted out of the same basic stuff as academic concerns-that is, available cultural resources that provide the means of thinking (Locke, 2002;cf. Billig et al, 1988;Billig, 1996).…”