Halloran, S. Michael. “The Birth of Molecular Biology: An Essay in the Rhetorical Criticism of Scientific Discourse.” Rhetoric Review 3.1 (1984): 70-83. Print.
Halloran’s states his purpose as a critical analysis of Watson and Cricks 1953 paper on the double helix dna structure.
Watson and Crick’s unusual tone and appeal to ethos stimulated a lot of thought for our ENG 505 class. Halloran says that their genteel tone was an appeal to ethos. But not only was their tone an appeal to ethos, it was what Halloran described as a distinctive move. I suggest that it was a distinctive move on their behalf because they understood at that time that science is a form of rhetoric. It is rhetorical in the sense that we use science to describe what something does, how it works, what it looks like. And though science has a special discourse and common protocol for how it is expressed, things like a slight switch on tone or appeal to ethos may help the purpose of a scientific document.
One of the biggest points in our conversation was to explore how Science is rhetoric and what made Watson and Crick decide to use that specific approach to their audience. We guessed that maybe Watson and Crick had already identified a missing appeal to ethos in normal scientific writing.
On any hand, Watson and Crick’s paper was not only a revolution for science but it was also quite possibly a scientific revolutionary point for scientific rhetoric.
Halloran says that the rhetoric critic is to discover what is the particular case where the available means of persuasion, and judge whether the rhetor managed them well or badly. The particular case commands his or her attention as something worth knowing in itself, apart from general principles that might be abstracted from it. (1)
Halloran also suggests to draw attention to the fact that very few scientists pay attention to particular cases of scientific rhetoric.
He goes on and says that Watson–Crick establishes a ethos, a characteristic manner of holding and expressing, ideas rooted in a distinctive understanding of the scientific enterprise. (2)
Scientific communities hold specific beliefs, they hold the logos of the discipline– may be crucial to a scientific community, their identity as a community may rest equally on “styllistic proclivities and the qualities of mental life of which those proclivities are tokens to ethos. (2)
Walter and Crick’s paper had a striking genteel tone. The effect gave the paper a highly personal unusual tone for scientific prose. (4-5)
Other writers use a impersonal tone because it is presumed that the work of the scientist is to simply give oneself up to the facts.
Questions:
What does it mean to speak from a pre-kuhnian view of science?
What is weetanscauungen?
I noticed that Halloran does not have a generating principle. Why not?
Terms:
Paradigm
Rhetorical topos
An argument from elegance?
topos of explanatory power
reportorial
I had the same question about the “pre-Kuhnian” view of science. Kuhn has come up before and I guess I should look him/her up…I find myself glossing over those parts.
I also share your question about the “topos of explanatory power.” Even though I did topos in the glossary project, I see this word being used in different ways and am never quite clear on what authors are getting at when the use it. The best I understand it, topos are sort of organizing questions for thinking about a topic. So what I think they mean (without the paper in front of me) by the term is that the authors of the original paper used the most effective questions to formulate their argument….BUT I’m not sure!
I tried to find some information on Kuhn but failed to do so. I think “pre-kuhnian” viewpoints have something to do with the scientific revolution, but I wasn’t quite sure what Halloran meant by that. I noticed that Halloran had discussed Kuhn in he’s previous work, so I assume that would be a good place to start.
I agree that it is an important point to make that Halloran notes that few scientists pay attention to rhetoric when, clearly, good rhetoric can help one’s success as a published scientist.
In terms of “topos of explanatory power”, I think that Jason’s assumptions sound correct… could this also be linked to one’s thesis statement?