He does this in three ways: calling for understanding and appreciation of "scientific rhetoric," or the "discourse in which science is actually performed" (3) within the English field; providing the to incorporate "scientific rhetoric" into English classrooms; and offering connections to English and cultural studies to help readers understand today's "dominant discourse." The primary focus of this review is to call attention to connections between composition studies and science and, in doing so, illustrate that the two fields can be connected effectively in the college composition classroom.In describing how to make these connections, Zerbe suggests using "empirical and rhetorical means" and peer-reviewed literature to illustrate how science discourse has come to claim its place as the dominant discourse of the twenty-first century.

accommodating science the rhetorical life of scientific facts-83

Fahnestock observed that even [End Page 233] though interest in the sciences has steadily grown over the years, there has been a lack of knowledge transference from the expert (the scientist) to the everyday person, creating a knowledge deficit between the two groups.

Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch began to "accommodate" science in (1993), a book written for "the citizen living in a technological society" (xv).

The public's inability to refute the questionable science presented in made the state of science literacy a front and center academic concern.

Earlier, Jeanne Fahnestock (1986) addressed concerns with the public's ability to decipher science rhetoric.

We highlight the need for (i) distinguishing between the impacts of fires occurring with differing severity and frequency, and (ii) improved characterization of ecosystem health that incorporates the response and recovery of peatlands to fire.

We also explore how recent research has been contextualized within both scientific publications and the wider media and how this can influence non-specialist perceptions.

These newer studies, however, differ widely in approach. On the other hand, the scientists are willing to share their feelings about their discoveries with the public in order to achieve wider audience.

Many take the perspective of cultural critique (e.g., the work of Bruno Latour and Stephen Woolgar), whereas others use the tools of discourse analysis (e.g., Greg Myers, M. These all have prompted popularizing of science within the last few decades.

A key event that triggered this call for improved science literacy was Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's (1994), which attempted to illustrate the differences in intellectual capacity among different people and how the plight of a few people directly influences the paths of the majority.

Zerbe describes the response to the book's research and statistics as both "immediate and heated," as it implied that people of certain races were somehow intellectually inferior (1).

Commentary: When this essay first appeared more than 10 years ago, it built on a small but substantial body of scholarship that declared scientific writing an appropriate field for rhetorical analysis. ABSTRACT: With the increasingly growing technological advances and their consequences for societies, the public has the right to be engaged in the outcomes of science.