“Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts” by Jeanne
Fahnestock is an article that discusses the way information changes as a function of rhetorical
situation, particularly in scientific discourse. By basing her argument on
comparisons between content in science writing that is aimed toward the
scientific community and that which is aimed toward the general public, Fahnestock
explores what happens to scientific information in the course of its adaptation
to various audiences, genres, and purposes.
In
Chapter 4, “Transformations of Scientific Discourse in the News Media”, of Ecospeak, Killingsworth and Palmer discuss the problems with scientific news
and the way in which science is marginalized to cater toward human interests.
Scientists
tend to write cautiously about their findings, usually admitting to a possible insufficiency
in evidence. Journalists tend to take the same information and categorize it as
fact, sensationalizing the information to increase its significance, certainty
and interest. Killingsworth and Palmer argue that the emphasis on human
interest is responsible for the gap between journalistic and scientific
writing.
It
is clear that changes occur in information as it passes from one rhetorical
situation to another. Writers
and journalists aim to make their work entertaining, emphasizing certain information
in order for the piece to be more interesting for their audience. But distortions
in reporting research could have serious consequences. How can we solve issues in misrepresentation of research
in writing while keeping the information interesting and worth reading? How do we, as writers, appeal to a
reader who is seeking some form of entertainment but also remain truthful? Fahnestock
remarks that writers must effectively bridge the gap between what the public
has a right to know and the public’s ability to understand. So how exactly do we bridge the gap?
Both
articles discuss the human desire for immediacy, relevance, wonder,
application, and human-interest when it comes to scientific discoveries. It is therefore
no surprise that journalists editorialize scientific language. But why, as an audience, are we so
deterred by plain language? What are the implications of the power of language
and diction on how we perceive an issue? Finally, as a writer, do you feel a
sense of responsibility to avoid bending the truth, or do you think it is
necessary to use certain language as a resource for gaining interest and engaging
an audience?
Upon reading your first paragraph, I couldn't help but think of Porter and Grant-Davie, who write about what makes up a written work and how it is individually perceived. This relates to Fahnestock's explorations in what happens to scientific information when it is read in that each of our own personal opinions, experiences, and education influence how we perceive a text. Perhaps, this breakdown of a text could explain how a discourse begins.
ReplyDeleteWhen Killingsworth and Palmer argue that the difference between journalism and scientific writing is the pressure of the reader's opinion, I wonder, What does that mean for the accuracy of the information for both of these types of writing? Do journalists stretch the truth? Do scientists withhold it out of concern for public approval? Which is worse? And most of all, why and how do these differences exist and what does that say about our society? It is widely known and accepted that sometimes scientific theories are proven wrong. It is widely known that sometimes news can be wrong, inaccurate. Perhaps journalists are more comfortable stretching the truth because they write about others. Maybe scientists are more careful because they write on human nature or the world we live in, and their knowledge has the potential to change the way the world functions and how humans perceive themselves. The situation changes from one rhetorical situation to another.