English 11 (period 1,2,4 &7)

5 minute Quick write! *Note: I will collect the quick writes

on Friday*

In three to five complete sentences, explore the following

prompt:

Why is it important to identify your purpose and audience

before you write?
laity (n) – ordinary people, as distinct from professionals or experts

superconductivity (n) – the property of zero electrical resistance in some

substances at very low absolute temperatures

[methodological] validity (n) – the quality of being logically or factually sound

skeptic (n) – a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions

lament (n) – a passionate expression of grief or sorrow

contradict (v) – to deny the truth of a statement, especially by asserting the

opposite

mitigate (v) – to make less severe, serious, or painful

rhetoric (n) – the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially
the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques

logos (n) - an appeal to logic

ethos (n) – an appeal to ethics

pathos (n) – an appeal to emotion

[author] credibility (n) – the quality of being trusted and believed in

discourse (n) – a formal discussion of a topic in speech or writing; a connected

series of utterances; a test or conversation
Grade 11 Unit 4 Lesson 1: Handout 1

What Students Should Know about Rhetoric

in Scientific Writing
Nancy Swisher, 2017

Rhetoric and science? Is this not a contradiction? Scientific texts are usually
expected to be dry, completely objective, and devoid of creativity and
imagination. So what does rhetoric - the art of persuasion based on logic,
author credibility, and emotion - have to do with scientific writing? More than
many would imagine.

Scholars have begun to argue during the last several decades that scientific
practice and discourse do have rhetorical and persuasive elements. If
science writers cannot persuade their readers that they are credible writers,
that their methods are sound, and that their premises are based on solid,
extensive, and well-documented research, those readers will be skeptical of
their writings. Indeed, experimental competence is itself a persuasive
technique.

Scientific research generated in a laboratory is of no use if it stays within a

rarefied bubble. In his review of the book The Scientific Literature: A Guided
Tour Steven Shapin in the Department of the History of Science, Harvard
University, states: "The accelerating incomprehensibility of scientific writing
to the average educated person is not merely the fault of the much-
lamented 'public ignorance of science'. Specialists have been so successful in
constructing and bounding their own audiences that they rarely feel any
need to address the laity or even scientists in other disciplines. Indeed, the
plant physiologist is likely to be just as poorly equipped as any non-scientist
to read a paper on superconductivity."
Grade 11 Unit 4 Lesson 1: Handout 1

He goes on to discuss the use of rhetoric in scientific writing to mitigate the

effects of such exclusivity within narrow discipline fields which precludes
access by the average educated person to important research. He adds:
"The scientific literature reports, but it also aims to persuade readers that
what it reports is reliable and significant. And the arts of persuasion are
inevitably literary and, specifically, rhetorical."

To have an impact, scientific knowledge must be communicated to both the

scientific community and the general public.

According to a researcher at Brigham Young University:

In order for this knowledge to be received and accepted by the intended

audience, generally the scientific community, the research or experimental
report must follow certain conventions, not the least of which are
methodological validity and pertinence to the existing body of scientific
knowledge. The authors of scientific papers must demonstrate the validity
and objectivity of their findings and make them seem interesting and
relevant to already-established conclusions. In effect, this is a rhetorical
situation: a speaker (the author) communicates knowledge about a
particular subject to an audience via the scientific paper, intending, on some
level, to persuade that audience.

What is most interesting about the rhetorical situation of the scientific paper
is that the writer persuades his or her audience largely through the
appearance of objectivity. Even if scientists were able to collect data in a
purely objective way, Brent Slife and Richard Williams contend that "we
cannot ignore the necessity of interpreting the data yielded by scientific
method." A computer might flawlessly organize data a particular way, but
that computer was programmed by someone. The point is that ideas outside
of the actual data set must be projected onto the data set before it means
anything. As Slife and Williams explain, "in this sense, data can never be
facts until they have been given an interpretation that is dependent on ideas
that do not appear in the data themselves.

So how do Aristotle's three rhetorical components relate specifically to

scientific writing?

Logos is evidently a rhetorical convention used in all scientific writing, which

is historically based on logic and reasoning.

Ethos speaks to the credibility of an author and is demonstrated by

adhering to the scientific method of problem-solution. It is also
demonstrated by an author's incisive explanation of methodology and keen
Grade 11 Unit 4 Lesson 1: Handout 1

analysis of results. It is further evidenced by an author's careful, clear and

precise writing.

Pathos, or an appeal to emotion, is less common in scientific writing.

However, statements such as "We were not surprised by the results." can
hint at an author's non-objective attitude toward his or her work. Interviews
and individual stories, when appropriate, can generate emotional reactions.
Pathos can also be induced by an author's claim to have discovered a way to
improve individual or group safety and wellbeing.

The judicious and appropriate use of rhetorical appeals could be one way to
make young science scholars' writing more effective.

Questions for discussion:

Why does the author believe that scientific knowledge must be communicated to both the scientific
community and general public?

According to the author, what is the role of rhetoric in scientific writing? How does she support her
perspective?

What are some differences/similarities in writing for an audience of scientists versus a general
audience?