5 Scientific Rhetoric
(Modified on 2026-08-11)
1,192 words
Most books sold in bookstores are classified as fiction. Fiction writers tell us that they make up their stories; the stories they write are products of their imaginations. Other materials are sold under the category non-fiction and this includes scholarship of all sorts, including science. On what basis can anyone make a distinction between fiction and non-fiction? If you pick up a copy of a professional journal, such as the Journal of Experimental Biology, what evidence do you have that the articles it contains are not also works of fiction? How do we know that the authors haven’t simply made it all up? On what basis would one ever be justified in thinking that an article in JEB is more believable or credible than (say) a chapter in the Anthology of Science Fiction and Fantasy? In turn, how can we, as researchers, make a special claim to know what’s true?
In Chapter 1, we discussed the theoretical justification of scientific knowledge. Rationality, empiricism, skepticism, etc. However, ultimately, the strength of science is not in these abstract philosophical theories. Rather, the strength of science is that we work hard, as individuals and as a community, to concretely justify each and every new piece of scientific knowledge.
An important point missing from our epistemology, so far, is that human knowledge is communal. It is not enough for us to decide what we believe is true knowledge. We must discuss and debate the justification of knowledge with other people. Specifically, as researchers, we have to convince an audience of our peers—all skeptical scientists themselves—that our research has produced valid, justified (and useful) knowledge. And we do this again each and every time.
Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Scholarship is a form of rhetoric. The end product of most research is a written document or spoken presentation that argues that some new knowledge is valid, valuable, and original. To do that, we need to use convincing rhetoric—which mostly means good writing! Even if you end up conducting internal proprietary research for a business, you will have to make arguments to your colleagues and employers that your research improves the user experience, increasing profitability, etc.
Some aspects of good rhetoric are universal: Effective rhetoric is engaging and interesting; good arguments are clearly articulated and easy to follow, using easily understood analogies to explain complex ideas. Good rhetoric balances necessary detail with clear big picture organization, so the audience can follow along and not lose track of the narrative. Of course, writing or speaking well like this is challenging, and a skill in itself.
However, not all rhetoric is welcome in the scientific community. Rhetoric can be manipulative; Rhetoric can be persuasive even when knowledge is false or unjustified. Scholars have long known of logical fallacies which humans are easily convinced by, and story-tellers (and politicians) have taken advantage of these since time immemorial. (Some of these well known fallacies are listed in our 63 potholes document.) As skeptics, we know that there are dangers in rhetoric, and we know that we are susceptible to fallacious rhetoric. The unique persuasive power of scientific rhetoric, then, is actually how we eschew and abhor manipulative rhetoric. Why? Because our goal is not just to convince our audience what we want them to believe. Our goal is to convince ourselves and our audience that our research has produced valid, justifiable knowledge. We don’t want to fool ourselves any more than we want to fool our audience.
Audience of Peers
In scientific publication, your audience is your community of skeptical scientists and engineers. This audience is trained to be skeptical and critical of new research. To look for possible holes, biases, and errors. They are acutely aware of the dangers of misleading and manipulative rhetoric. They are experts in specific methodological practices that their field applies specifically to minimize error and bias.
How does one convince such a skeptical audience to accept your knowledge claims? You have to convince them that you have not fallen prey to biases or errors. You must clearly articulate your reasoning (deduction) and describe your evidence (induction). Most relevant to this course, you must use widely accepted methodological techniques which are designed to avoid common logical errors that we are predisposed to, and argue that you have applied these techniques correctly to minimize these errors. You need to convince your readers that you are aware of common errors and biases, and that you have taken steps to minimize them.
All research has potential weaknesses or problems. To convince a skeptical audience, you must convince them that you have considered many possible problems with your work and attempted to solve them—if nothing else, you need to show you are aware of them. Convince your readers that you have already been rigorously skeptical of your own ideas. Most importantly, you must absolutely avoid any misleading language (lying). This might seem obvious, but there are ways that even seasoned researchers can find themselves “lying by omission” in ways that affect the validity of research.
Scientific rhetoric, thus, attempts to be the opposite of conventional (manipulative) rhetoric. Scientific writing should be imbued with skepticism and critical thinking at every stage. Strong scientific rhetoric makes every, genuine effort to prove itself wrong. Present your work as tentative and imperfect. Draw attention to possible problems or errors. Through a process of (rigorously-justified) story-telling and argument, with narratives and counter-narratives competing, we as a scientific community gradually convince ourselves (and each other) of what knowledge is valid. Though we all know that nothing is ever proven, we as a community (hopefully) come to agreement.
Prove Me Right
As we know, it is not really possible to prove knowledge claims about the universe, but it is possible to disprove them. We’ve also discussed that humans are biased towards finding what we want to find—in particular, making claims that aren’t actually true (Type 1 error). These two ideas help us understand one of the central practices in scientific rhetoric: in a scientific inquiry, we don’t aim to prove our ideas right, we aim to prove our ideas wrong. We will learn soon about how to propose and test “null hypotheses” as part of this process.
Of course, we wouldn’t be doing research if we really though it was wrong—we want to find (positive) results in our work. But, rhetorically, we must convince our peers that we tried to disprove our theories. This is why downplaying or hiding “problems” or even interpreting your results an overly optimistic way is not acceptable. Your peers will interpret this as evidence that you didn’t really try to prove yourself wrong, and that you are then highly susceptible to making Type 1 errors.
Mantras
As always, we summarize some of the ideas in this reading in our course mantras:
Your research doesn’t “speak for itself”—conclusions don’t just fall out of the data. We aren’t writing down the Truth; we’re convincing readers to agree with our claims, which means making arguments for our research’s validity. This shapes the work from the very beginning: at every stage, ask what point you’re making and why it’s valid. If you can’t make that argument, something is wrong—rethink or retool.
Skepticism is the most important skill you can develop. Be prepared to question and critically analyze everything—especially yourself, your own ideas, your own questions and, yes, your own skepticism. Self-skepticism is a tool to do the best research: It will help you find problems in your research before you commit them.
Aim for modesty, even as you make brilliant points. The strength of science is precisely that its practitioners choose methods that enforce intellectual humility.
When presenting your results, frame them narrowly rather than broadly. Couch your claims. Aim for modesty and competence: over-deliver on evidence while understating your conclusions. Offer more evidence than your readers think necessary, and express your conclusions in a more tentative or circumspect manner than your readers expect. Let the reader form their own impression about the degree to which a result might generalize.
Using concise and precise technical terms is a good thing, if it enhances clarity. When in doubt, it’s better to over-define and explain than to under-explain, to make totally sure your readers/reviewers understand what you are saying.
Define acronyms and jargon. Don’t assume everyone will understand the words you use the way you understand them—explain what you mean by different terms. Don’t be afraid to repeat yourself.