science

I am pleased to announce the debut issue of the Science and Writing area of The Writing Instructor. In this issue are five excellent essays that will, I think, help advance the ever-expanding rhetoric of science field. Some clarifications may be necessary, however, to demonstrate how this area, “Science and Writing,” is actually conceived as a sub-category of study relevant to writing instructors.

Conversation on June 27, 2011, with Deborah H. Holdstein about her article in the 1984 TWI

Science and Rhetoric: A Changing Relationship

Until recently, the notion of a “rhetoric of science” may have sounded oxymoronic.* Traditional conceptions of science as the embodiment of disinterested, objective knowledge of nature, coupled with perceptions of rhetoric as empty verbiage, subterfuge, or stylistic embellishment, made science and rhetoric appear quite incompatible.

Stasis theory is a powerful tool for rhetorical analysis, recently under fresh consideration by rhetorical theorists (e.g. Gross) and scholars who identify its utility in the writing classroom (e.g. Carroll). In this study, I apply stasis theory to a paleontological argument involving a controversial fossil, Protoavis texensis. Discourse related to the controversy is examined under the lens of the staseis, and the application of stasis theory to visual components of argumentative texts associated with scientific communication is explored.

Nature writing is perhaps the most American form of writing. It celebrates America’s wilderness and open spaces. It also laments America’s greed and exploitation of the environment. Perhaps most of all, nature writing touches our spirits, inspires us, and summons us.

Few contemporary scientific texts are written in the dialogue form used by earlier scientists such as Newton, Galileo and Boyle; additionally, the extended form of dialogue that exists in professional journals is usually not visible to the novice student. Therefore, students often are not actively engaged in the language and rhetoric of science. As Jay Lemke points out in his book Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values: “Talking science is not the totality of doing science.