Ràïôà Réôïç: Té Rôé ô Sçïéçé ï Pôûà Dïŝçôûŝé ular representations of science and scientiîc discourse under the terministic lenses of rhetorical theory, cultural studies, and language theory. DàVï J. Tïéé ranges broadly and insightfully across a wide range of scientiîc dis course and ideology as it is reconîgured for general consumption, in popu lar science writing (from Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking and Stephen J. Gould), magazines (from Scientiîc American to Time and Social Text), news media (from CNN to The Discovery Channel), the public controversies over evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, and even pop psychology (Oprah, The Dr. Phil Show). The result is a tour de force reconceptualization of the enormous impact that our understanding (and misunderstanding) of science has on modern consciousness and, in turn, many of the most impor tant issues confronting American society in an era of global warming, wars on science, and other inconvenient truths.
Ràïôà Réôïç: Té Rôé ô Sçïéçé ï Pôûà Dïŝçôûŝé is complex and complete, reasonable and readable. It doesn’t say to readers, ‘here’s yet another cultural debate in which you have a stake’; instead, RATIONAL RHETORIC argues, ‘here’s a debate that’s going on in American culture that maers to all of us, and you’re already siing at the table taking part.’” —Shane Borrowman, University of Nevada, Reno
DàVï Tïéé is Associate Professor of English at Monmouth University, where he teaches courses in rhetorical theory, the rhetoric of science, com position pedagogy, literature, and writing. He has published on scientiîc rhetoric in The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication and The Journal of Advanced Composition. His earlier book, Flash Eect: Science and the Rhetorical Origins of Cold War America (2002, Ohio University Press), examines the role of science on the ideology of American society dur ing the early Cold War era.
816 Robinson St. West Lafayee, Indiana 47906 www.parlorpress.com SAN: 254-8879 ISBN: 978-1-60235-071-7
g e R at i o n a l R h e t o R i c R at i o n a l R h e t o R i c t h e R o l e o f S c i e n c e i n P o P u l a R D i S c o u R S e
S S
D av i D J . t i e t g e
Rational Retoric
he Role of Science in Popular Discourse
David J. Tietge
Parlor Press West Lafayette, Indiana www.parlorpress.com
Parlor Press LLC, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
© 2008 by Parlor Press All rigts reserved. Printed in te United States of America
S A N: 2 5 4 - 8 8 7 9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tietge, David J., 1966-Rational retoric : te role of science in popular discourse / David J. Tietge. p. cm. Includes bibliograpical references and index. ISBN 978-1-60235-069-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-60235-070-0 (ardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-60235-071-7 (adobe ebook) 1. Science--Social aspects. 2. Science--Pilosopy. I. Title. Q175.5.T547 2008 306.4’5--dc22 2008024748
Cover image: “DNA” © 2007 by Vasiliy Yakobcuk. Used by permission. Cover design by David Blakesley. Printed on acid-free paper.
Parlor Press, LLC is an independent publiser of scolarly and trade titles in print and multimedia formats. Tis book is available in paper, clot and Adobe eBook formats from Parlor Press on te World Wide Web at ttp://www.parlorpress.com or troug online and brick-and-mortar bookstores. For submission information or to find out about Parlor Press publications, write to Parlor Press, 816 Robinson St., West Lafayette, Indiana, 47906, or e-mail editor@parlorpress.com.
Contents
Foreword and a Note on Metodologyvii Introduction: A Case For Retorical Studies3 1 A Culture of Science and Capitalism20 2 Te Creation of Media-Ready Science75 3 Two Popular Representatives of Science105 4 Scientists Named Steve132 5 Scientific Etos171 6 Te Sound of Punditry199 7 More Popular Sources for te Scientific Project240 8 Intelligent Design, Creationism, Evolution, and Darwinian Descents289 9 Residual Field Analysis313 10 Postmodernism, Humanism, and te Science Wars334 11 Te Education “Crisis”358 12 Conclusion389 Notes397 Works Cited421 Index439 About te Autor455
v
Foreword and a Note on Metodology
Wile te body of work available in te area of retoric of science is fairly expansive, few outside specialized academic programs in retoric ave any knowledge of it. A peer of mine declared in a review once tat “tere is a lot out tere on te retoric of science.” Wen I tell tis to people outside of te sub-field of retoric of science, even to career academicians, tey frequently reply, “watiste ‘retoric of science’? I never tougt tat tese two words could go togeter.” Te paradox of a large body of scolarsip tat is virtually unknown to anyone not interested in tis area of researc is tat, wile tere may in fact be “a lot out tere,” no one except experts in te field is reading it, and tis leads to a self-referentiality and academic inbreeding tat guarantees te formation of barriers for anyone not torougly steeped in te re-stricted discourse of tis specialized academic community. However, tis is not unusual in te world of academe. One would not expect an accountant to read about neurobiology any more tan one would expect a cemist to read a literary analysis ofMrs. Dalloway.Yet, tere is a growing need for people of all economic and educational levels to be informed about science, and just as importantly, about te language tat science uses to acieve its information. In my earlier book,Flash Effect,I admittedly underplayed te dept of researc available on te topic of te retorical use of scientific ideas because it was an inter-disciplinary work tat I wanted to make accessible to a broader range of people interested in istory, retoric, cultural studies, and political discourse; ad I cosen te traditional scolarly route for tat book, it would ave made it unreadable in any practical way for even te most well-rounded layperson, and it is te intent of tis current project to make te material accessible not only to scolars in oter fields, but also above all to te average reader.
vii
viii
Foreword
One of te working premises in tis text is tat scientific ideas avenotbeen made accessible in any truly critical way to te average person wose interest in science sould be encouraged. By “truly criti-cal” I mean in a way tat instructs readers in te skills of umanistic “critical tinking,” wile not merely “dumbing down” (a favorite and somewat tiresome prase of te conservative scientific elite) scientific material in te process. It is from te vantage point of retorical analy-sis tat we can draw a basic conclusion about academic publising: Far too many aloof academics are preoccupied wit guarding teir own spere of interest at te expense of saring knowledge wit te rest of te reading and tinking public, and to lament tat te reading and tinking public no longer exists only furter empasizes tis point. If we are onest wit ourselves, ten we migt ask ow complicit we aca-demics are in keeping te public ignorant. Te success of teFor Dum miesandIdiot’s Guidebookseries sows ow “experts” often patronize te very people wo sould be tinking about te implications of ideas central to modern life (altougFondue for Dummiescould probably be sacrificed witout a corresponding blow to civilization), a process tat not only alienates te reading public and elps keep tem sielded from matters tat impact tem directly, but also undermines te very democratic process tat we assume is part of a broad umanistic and liberal arts education. Witout education (not teindoctrinationtat seems to dominate public and private education, or, worse, mere job training designed to keep people busy wit te tecnology but not wit te more difficult—and dangerous—task of assessing wat tey do in te workplace) tere is noting on wic to base a truly enligt-ened understanding of scientific enterprises. Suc enterprises, in fact, cannot be enligtened witout te commencement of public inter-est and knowledge. Oterwise, we blow limply wit watever direc-tion experts and “autorities” tell us, and it only furter compounds te confusion of te general public wen tey see tat te arguments made by te experts on wic tey rely so eavily are as diverse as te fields tey represent. Some may like te idea tat te American public seems easily swindled, tat tey can be manipulated wit little or no real evidence or suasive acumen, but I not only firmly believe tat tis is a caricature of te American “Everyman” (and woman), but also feel tat if itistrue, it is anoter symptom tat our great civilization is in its deat troes. If tis is true, umanism truly is te ardest fait to keep.
Foreword
ix
Education, so long eld as te panacea for all social ills and as te scapegoat for all social failures, is in dire straigts indeed; we invoke its power as a word wile rarely cultivating its real wort and poten-tial as a common condition for every person. It is up to te academic, more tan anyone else, to lead te way. Scool boards ave failed, as ave administrations on all levels, from te local to te federal. Wy? Because tose wo are often in te position to make te important and difficult political decisions regarding education are too often in-fluenced by people wo ave little experience in, knowledge about, or genuine concern for, te state of education. (Teacers, by te way, fail only wen tey are set up to fail by teir bosses, wo are often lame duck administrators performing te will oftheirsuperiors. Tose at te igest levels of educational administration are very frequently noting more tan political automatons, and tey give far too muc credence to te reactionary wims of teir constituency. It’s time we stopped blaming teacers for our own sortcomings.) Academics, as long as te tenure system remains intact (wic we sould in no way assume) ave te appy luxury of “Academic Freedom,” wic, at least ideally, means tey can speak onestly and candidly witout fear of reprisal. For tose wo would deny us tis last bastion of intellectual liberty—tose wo tink tenure is a aven for te lazy, te kooky, and te ideologically subversive—please consider te alternative, a world wit no dissenting voice and a populous beaten into submissive si-lence, unaware of its own state and unequipped to foster cange. Tis is not te image most of us ave of a functional and vibrant democ-racy. We will no longer ave any means for exploring new visions or producing a more enligtened public because universities will ave ad-opted a business model tat allows for te termination of its employees witout substantial cause or justification—in many cases, for simply discussing an unpopular idea. We will produce, ire, and reward pro-fessors wo toe te party line, mere puppets of te status quo wit te same intellectual relevance to te advancement of our knowledge and learning as te twenty-dollar-an-our unionized assembly line worker. Te specializations tat Ivory Tower academics covet so carefully as a venue for bantering among temselves te minutiae of sub-sub-sub-specialties wile watcing te rest of society crumble from educational decay will certainly no longer be needed nor desired. We ignore te common person—te one wo possesses an innate intellectual curios-ity and a natural uman intelligence but no means (nor incentive) to