Next Generation

汉特-曼西自治区

2006-07-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

汉特-曼西自治区
Ханты-Мансийский автономный округ‎

汉特-曼西自治区(俄语: Ханты-Мансийский автономный округ‎)，是俄罗斯联邦主体之一，屬秋明州。面積523,100 km²，人口1,432,817 (2002年)。首府汉特-曼西斯克。

汉特和曼西指的是當地的原住民—汉特人和曼西人。

參看

亚马尔-涅涅茨自治区

俄罗斯行政区划

中央联邦管区	奥廖尔州 \| 别尔哥罗德州 \| 布良斯克州 \| 弗拉基米尔州 \| 卡卢加州 \| 科斯特罗马州 \| 库尔斯克州 \| 利佩茨克洲 \| 莫斯科自治市 \| 莫斯科州 \| 梁赞州 \| 斯摩棱斯克州\| 坦波夫州 \| 特维尔州 \| 图拉州 \| 沃罗涅日州 \| 雅羅斯拉夫爾州\| 伊万诺沃州 \|
南部联邦管区	阿迪格共和国 \| 阿斯特拉罕州 \| 北奥塞梯-阿兰共和国 \| 车臣共和国 \| 达吉斯坦共和国 \| 伏尔加格勒州 \| 卡巴尔达—巴尔卡尔共和国 \| 卡尔梅克共和国 \| 卡拉恰伊-切尔克斯共和国 \| 克拉斯诺达尔边疆区 \| 罗斯托夫州 \| 斯塔夫罗波尔边疆区 \| 印古什共和国 \|
西北部联邦管区	阿尔汉格尔斯克州 \| 涅涅茨自治区 \| 加里宁格勒州 \| 卡累利阿共和国 \| 科米共和国 \| 摩尔曼斯克州 \| 诺夫哥羅德州 \| 普斯科夫州 \| 圣彼得堡自治市 \| 列宁格勒州 \| 沃洛格达州 \|
遠東聯邦管區	阿穆尔州 \| 楚科奇自治区 \| 堪察加州 \| 科里亚克自治区 \| 哈巴罗夫斯克边疆区 \| 马加丹州 \| 滨海边疆区 \| 萨哈(雅库特)共和国 \| 萨哈林州 \| 犹太自治州 \|
西伯利亚联邦管区	阿尔泰共和国 \| 阿尔泰边疆区 \| 布里亚特共和国 \| 赤塔州 \| 阿加布里亞特自治區 \| 伊尔库茨克州 \| 乌斯季奥尔登斯基布里亚特自治州 \| 哈卡斯共和国 \| 科麦罗沃州 \| 克拉斯諾亞爾斯克邊疆區 \| 泰梅尔(多尔干-涅涅茨)自治区 \| 埃文基自治区 \| 新西伯利亚州 \| 鄂木斯克州 \| 托木斯克州 \| 图瓦共和国 \|
乌拉尔联邦管区	库尔干州 \| 斯維爾德洛夫斯克州 \| 秋明州 \| 汉特-曼西自治区 \| 亚马尔-涅涅茨自治区 \| 车里雅宾斯克州 \|
伏尔加联邦管区	巴什科尔托斯坦共和国 \| 楚瓦什共和国 \| 基洛夫州 \| 马里埃尔共和国 \| 莫尔多瓦共和国 \| 下诺夫哥罗德州 \| 奥伦堡州 \| 奔萨州 \| 彼尔姆邊疆區 \| 萨马拉州 \| 萨拉托夫州 \| 鞑靼斯坦共和国 \| 乌德穆尔特共和国 \| 乌里扬诺夫斯克州 \|

太古洋行

2006-07-18T10:59:00.000-07:00

太古洋行標誌

太古洋行(Swire)LSE：SWRA(倫敦A股)是一家老牌英資洋行，清朝時即從事與中國的貿易。今天的太古是一间植根于亚洲的跨国公司。其在大中华区的业务多用太古（Taikoo）名称。

太古洋行旗下的太古股份有限公司是一家在香港交易所上市的綜合企業。

历史

1816年 John Swire（1793-1847）在英國利物浦创立。
1861年太古集團開始透過代理Augustine Heard & Co.與中國進行貿易。
1866年與R.S. Butterfield在上海合夥建立Butterfield & Swire（B&S）。
1867年上海辦事處開始營業。
1870年 B&S在香港開業。
1948年 B&S收購國泰航空公司四成半股權。
1953年 B&S關閉其中國的辦事處。
1974年 B&S在香港更名为John Swire & Sons

業務

太古地產有限公司
- 太古城
- 太古廣場
- 太古坊
- 又一城
國泰航空
香港飛機工程
太古可口可樂
香港聯合船塢（前太古船塢）
卜內門太古（ICI）

外部链接

太古洋行
太古集團太平洋

高分子

2006-05-09T19:14:00.000-07:00

高分子是具有相当高的分子量的分子，一般指聚合物和结构上包括聚合物的分子。几乎所有的高分子都是有机分子。

许多生物化学中的分子是高分子，其中包括蛋白质、淀粉、脂类和核酸，这些分子有时也被称为生物高分子。人工合成的高分子包括塑料。金属和晶体虽然也是由许多原子组成的，其内部通过类似分子的键联合在一起，但是它们一般不被认为是高分子。

有时不同的高分子之间通过分子间力（但不是通过化学键）组合到一起，尤其是假如这样的组合是自然发生的，而且其组成部分一般不单独出现的话，那么这样的混合物也会被称为高分子。实际上这样的混合物更应该被称为高分子复合物。在这种情况下组成这个复合物的单个高分子往往被称为下单位。

由高分子组成的物质往往有不寻常的物理特性。液晶和橡胶就是很好的例子。许多高分子在水中需要特殊的小分子帮助才能溶解。许多需要盐或者特殊的离子来溶解。

参见

高分子化学
高分子物理
高分子材料
流变学

高分子

Knight Rider (video game)

2006-01-23T21:56:00.000-08:00

Knight Rider

Developer(s)	Acclaim
Publisher(s)	Nintendo
Designer(s)	Pack-In Video
Release date(s)	1989 July 27, 1990
Genre(s)	Racing
Mode(s)	Single player
Platform(s)	NES

Knight Rider is an NES video game that is very loosely based on the TV show of the same name. Terrorists are running rampant all over the United States of America and only a man and his robotic car can stop them from taking over. However, the game is very difficult to play and there is also a DRIVE mode that allows players to go on a Sunday drive through the stages (similar to Streets of SimCity).

Ways to Lose a Life

If the player runs out of gasoline, he loses a life.
If the player's car is destroyed, he loses a life.
If time runs out, he loses a life.

However, there is a stage select cheat that can be found by clicking here

PB-Soft

2005-11-04T14:11:00.000-08:00

**PB-Soft**

Type:	Private
Founded:	1997
Location:	Kuwait, Shuwaikh
Key people	Belmir Patkovic, Planinko Torlakovic
Industry	Computer software
Products	Address Book and Encoder-Decoder
Employees	2
Website	www.geocities.com/belmirp

PB-Soft is small programming team which started in 1997. Their main projects are Address Book and Encoder-Decoder.

Belmir Patkovic and Planinko Torlakovic

SMYAL

2005-07-09T10:21:00.000-07:00

SMYAL

The Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL) is the only Washington, DC metro area service organization solely dedicated to supporting and enhancing the self-esteem and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersexual, and questioning (LGBTIQ) youth, and increasing public awareness and understanding of their challenges. Their mission is to promote self-confident, healthy, and productive lives for LGBTIQ youth as they journey from adolescence into adulthood.

SMYAL was founded in 1984 by a group of community activists in response to the hospitalization and incarceration of male youth in St. Elizabeths Hospital for perceived effeminacy. SMYAL began as a weekend support group, expanded into an after-school program, and in 1997 purchased two adjacent row houses on Capitol Hill that serve as the administrative offices and Youth Center.

External links

SMYAL web page

Rhetoric of science

2005-03-06T17:09:00.000-08:00

Rhetoric, since Aristotle, is best known as a discipline that studies the means and ends of persuasion. Science can be seen as the making of knowledge about the natural world. Rhetoric of science includes a body of literature in various disciplines such as sociology, history philosophy of science, but it is practiced most fully by rhetoricians in departments of English, Speech, and Communications. The father of empirical science, Francis Bacon, saw rhetoric as the application of reason to imagination for the better moving of the will (Booth 6). Scientists must discover lines of argument to convince their community of scientists that their research is based on sound scientific method – the use of methodology that makes firm connections between observational and theoretical claims. From a rhetorical point of view, scientific method involves problem-solution topoi (the materials of discourse) that demonstrate observational and experimental competence (arrangement or order of discourse or method), and as a means of persuasion, offer explanatory and predictive power (Prelli 185-193). Experimental competence is itself a persuasive topos (Prelli 186). Rhetoric of science is a practice of suasion that is an outgrowth of some of the canons of rhetoric.

Science – a method of inquiry that produces small, but incremental, amounts of knowledge – is the object of interest of rhetoric of science. As mentioned, this subfield of rhetoric is in one sense a branch of inquiry that has as it goal not only the determination of the means of persuasion but also the task of the reconstruction of the means by which scientists convince themselves and others that their claims are verifiable and true to the world (Gross “On Shoulders” 20-21). Rhetoric, as a tool in science writing, engenders the propagation of new perspectives and new points of view.

Major themes in rhetoric of science include the investigation of the accomplishments and sausive abilities of individuals (ethos) who have left a mark in their respective sciences as well as an age old concern of rhetoric of science - public science policy.

1 History
2 Developments and Trends
- 2.1 Epistemic Rhetoric
- 2.2 Argument Fields
- 2.3 Incommensurability
- 2.4 Ethos
- 2.5 Rhetorical Figures in Science
- 2.6 Critique of Rhetoric of Science
3 See also
4 Works Cited
5 Other Readings

History

Since 1970, rhetoric of science, as a field involving rhetoricians, flourished. This flourishing of scholarly activity contributed to a shift in the image of science that was taking place. Once concerned with the products of science, a new interest among scientists in the processes and practices of science emerged (Harris “Intro,” Landmark xv). This shift demonstrates changing values and goals within a community of scientists and a greater emphasis on communication.

The history of the rhetoric of science effectively begins with Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). He examines first normal science, that is, a practice which he saw as routine, patterned and accessible with a specific method of problem-solving. Building on past knowledge, normal science advances by accretions in a knowledge base (Harris “Intro,” Landmark xiii). Kuhn then contrasts normal science with revolutionary science (ground-breaking science marked by a paradigm-shift in thought). When Kuhn began to teach Harvard undergraduates historical texts such as Aristotle’s writings on motion, he looked to case studies, and sought first to understand Aristotle in his own time, and then to locate his problems and solutions within a wider context of contemporary thought and actions (Nickles 144). That is to say, Kuhn sought first to understand the traditions and established practices of science (Nickles 162). In this instance, Michael Polanyi's influence on Kuhn becomes apparent; that is, his acknowledgement of the importance of inherited practices and rejection of absolute objectivity. Observing the changes in scientific thought and practices, Kuhn concluded that revolutionary changes happen through the defining notion of rhetoric: persuasion (Harris “Intro,” Landmark xiv). The critical work of Herbert W. Simons - "Are Scientists Rhetors in Disguise?" in Rhetoric in Transition (1980) - and subsequent works show that Kuhn’s Structure is fully rhetorical.

Kuhn’s strategies and his accounts related to concept representation – the key conceptual changes that occur during a scientific revolution – are found in the section titled “Incommensurability.” Concepts lead to the production of hypotheses and theories.

The work of Thomas Kuhn was extended by Richard Rorty (1979, 1989), and this work was to prove fruitful in defining the means and ends of rhetoric in scientific discourse (Jasinski “Intro” xvi). Rorty, who coined the phrase “rhetorical turn,” was also interested in assessing periods of scientific stability and instability.

Another component of the shift in science that took place in the past centres on the claim that there is no single scientific method, but rather a plurality of methods, approaches or styles (Harris "Intro," Landmark xvi). Paul Feyerabend in Against Method (1975) contends that science has found no “method that turns ideologically contaminated ideas into true and useful theories,” in other words; no special method exists that can guarantee the success of science (302).

As evidenced in the early theory papers after Kuhn’s seminal work, the idea that rhetoric is crucial to science came to the fore. Quarterly journals in speech and rhetoric saw a flourishing of discussion on topics such as inquiry, logic, argument fields, ethos of scientific practitioners, argumentation, scientific text, and the character of scientific discourse and debates. Philip Wander (1976) observed, for instance, the phenomenal penetration of science (public science) in modern life. He labelled the obligation of rhetoricians to investigate science's discourse ' "The Rhetoric of Science" (Harris "Knowing" 164). Other ideas on the role of rhetoric in science emerged.

Examples of the types of discussion that emerged in conference papers, articles or texts are as follows:

Epistemic rhetoric and the discourses on the nature of semantics, knowledge, and truth: One example is the Robert L. Scott's work on viewing rhetoric as epistemic (1967). By the 1990s, epistemic rhetoric was a point of contention in the writing of Dilip Gaonkar.

The early 1970s Speech Communication Conference ("Wingspread conference") gave recognition to the fact that rhetoric, in its globalization (multidisciplinary nature), has become a universal hermeneutic (Gross Rhetorical 2-5). Much scholastic output evolved around the theory of interpretation (hermeneutics), the knowledge-making and truth-seeking (epistemic) potential of rhetoric of science.

Argument Fields (part of the Speech Communication Association and American forensic Association program): In this domain the work of Toulmin on argument appeals is exemplary. In addition, Michael Mulkay, Barry Barnes and David Bloor, as pioneers of the "Sociology of Scientific Knowledge" (SSK) movement, fostered a growing sociobiology debate. Others as Greg Myers expressed the benefits of a collaboration between rhetoricians and sociologists. The interest of this group of scholarslies in the capacity of rhetoric and discourse to bridge knowledge between different scientific domains is extended in the works of John Lyne and Henry Howe concerning the ways arguments change as they move from audience to audience - from the scientific community to the public (Harris "Intro," Landmark xxi-xxxii).

Scientific Giants: The important works that investigate the suasive powers of exemplars in science include those of Alan Gross (Newton, Descartes, argument fields in optics), John Angus Campbell (Darwin), and Michael Halloran (Watson and Crick). John Angus Campbell's work on Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, for instance his work titled, "Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of Science" (1987), shows that Darwin was a rhetorician through and through. Campbell provided an early 'case' in support of rhetoric of science (Harris "Intro," Landmark xxx).

Ethos: Lawrence Prelli - following the work of Jeanne Fahnestock, John Lyne and Henry Howe on scientific controversy, argument and prose - focuses on scientific ethos in "The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos" (1989).

The reconstitution of rhetorical theory around the lines of invention (inventio), argumentation and stylistic adapation is going on today (Simons 6). Questions concerning rhetorical theory and rhetoric of science continue today unabated; for instance, consideration is given to the relationship between modes of expression and argumentation. In this realm, genre is important as shown by Charles Bazerman in his work on the experimental report. Recent work that pertains to an understanding the rhetorical effectivness of investigative reports asks what are the consequences of a single coherent narrative as opposed to the structuring of such a report as a series of discrete facts and conclusions (Simons 18).

The key question today is whether training in rhetoric can in fact help scholars and investigators make intelligent choices between rival theories, methods or data collection, and incommensurate values (Simons 14). This comes back to the last word in Aristotle's Rhetoric: "judgement" (158).

Developments and Trends

Epistemic Rhetoric

Much discussion arose in the past on defining rhetoric as an object of intellectual inquiry. Rhetoric of inquiry refers to the debates and discussions about the nature of (and relationship among) knowledge, language, human discourse and reality (Jasinski 316). Seeing science from the point of texts exhibiting epistemology based on prediction and control offers new comprehensive ways to see the function of rhetoric of science (Gross “The Origin” 91-92). Epistemic rhetoric of science, in a broader context, deals with the issues that concern, for instance, constructivism and relativism as it confronts issues pertaining to truth and knowledge.

Rhetoric of science, as a branch of inquiry, does not look at scientific (natural science) texts as a transparent means of conveying knowledge, but rather it looks at these texts as exhibiting persuasive structures. Although the natural sciences and humanities differ in a fundamental way, the enterprise of science can be viewed hermeneutically as a stream of texts which exhibit an epistemology based on understanding (Gross “On the Shoulders 21). Its task then is the rhetorical reconstruction of the means by which scientists convince themselves and others that their knowledge claims and assertions are an integral part of privileged activity of the community of thinkers with which they are allied (Gross “The Origin” 91).

In an article titled “On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic” (1967), Robert Scott offers “that truth can arise only from cooperative critical inquiry” (Harris “Knowing” 164). Scott’s probe of the issues of belief, knowledge and argumentation substantiates that rhetoric is epistemic. This train of thought goes back to Gorgias who noted that truth is a product of discourse, not a substance added to it (Harris “Knowing” 164).

Scientific discourse is built on accountability of empirical fact which is presented to a scientific community. Each form of communication is a type of genre that fosters human interaction and relations. An example is the emerging form of the experimental report (Bazerman “Reporting” 171-176). The suite of genres to which the rhetoric of science comes to bear on health care and scientific communities is legion.

Aristotle could never accept the unavailability of certain knowledge, although most now believe the contrary (Gross “On Shoulders” 20). Science is not only a way of understanding nature specific to an era, it is a way of knowing by accumulating data from observations and experiments and by seeking relationships of the data with other phenomena (Moore 503). Knowing itself generates the explanation of knowing, and this is the domain of the theory of knowledge. The knowledge of knowledge compels an attitude of vigilance against the temptation of certainty (Maturana 239-245).

Argument Fields

By the 1980s, Stephen Toulmin’s work on argument fields published in his book titled The Uses of Argument (1958) came to prominence through rhetorical societies such as the Speech Communication Association which adopted a sociological view of science. Toulmin's main contribution is his notion of argument fields that saw a reinvention of the rhetorical concept topoi (topics) (Harris “Intro” Landmark xxi).

Toulmin discusses at length the pattern of an argument – data and warrants to support a claim – and how they tend to vary across argument fields (Toulmin 1417-1422). Descartes' optical works showing that white light was basic and colour derivative participates in an argument field, and it helped to establish the materials and structures of an argument field. Specifically, the agreed upon methods of traditional optics and the field-specific assumptions constitute an argument field (Gross “On Shoulders” 22). Toulmin delineated two concepts of argumentation, one which relied on universal (field-invariant) appeals and strategies, and one which was field dependent, particular to disciplines, movements, and the like. For Toulmin, audience is important because one speaks to a particular audience at a particular point in time, and thus an argument must be relevant to that audience. In this instance, Toulmin echoes Feyerabend, who in his preoccupation with suasive processes, makes clear the adaptive nature of persuasion (Harris “Intro” Landmark xxv).

Toulmin's ideas pertaining to argument were a radical import to argumentation theory because, in part, he contributes a model, and because he contributes greatly to rhetoric and its subfield, rhetoric of science, by providing a model of analysis (data, warrants) to show that what is argued on a subject is in effect a structured arrangement of values that are purposive and lead to a certain line of thought.

Toulmin showed in Human Understanding that the arguments that would support claims as different as the Copernican revolution and the Ptolemaic revolution would not require mediation. On the strength of argument, men of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries converted to Copernican astronomy (Gross “The Rhetoric” 214).

Incommensurability

The rhetorical challenge today is to find discourse that crosses disciplines without sacrificing the specifics of each discipline. The aim is to render description of these disciplines intact – that is to say, the goal of finding language that would make various scientific fields “commensurable” (Baake 29). In contrast, Incommensurability is the term used to describe a situation where two scientific programs are fundamentally at odds. Two important voices who applied incommensurability to historical and philosophical notions of science in the 1960s are Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. Various strands grew out of this idea that bear on issues of communication and invention. These strands are explicated in Randy Allen Harris’s four-part taxonomy that in turn foregrounds his viewpoint that “incommensurability is best understood not as a relation between systems, but as a matter of rhetorical invention and hermeneutics” (Harris “Incommensurability” 1).

Incommensurability of theory at times of radical theory change is at the heart of Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s theory of paradigms (Bazerman 1). Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions offers a vision of scientific change that involves persuasion, and thus he brought rhetoric to the heart of scientific studies (Harris "Intro," Landmark xiii).

Kuhn’s Structure provides important accounts related to the concept representation, and the key conceptual changes that occur during a scientific revolution. Kuhn sought to determine ways of representing concepts and taxonomies by frames (Barker 224-230). Kuhn's work attempts to show that incommensurable paradigms can be rationally compared by revealing the compatability of attribute lists of say a species outlined in a pre-Darwinian and a post-Darwinian milieu accounted for in two incommensurable taxonomies, and that this compatability is the platform for rational comparison between rival taxonomies (Barker 230-231). With a view to comparing normal science to revolutionary science, Kuhn illustrates his theory of paradigms and theory of concepts within the history of electricity, chemistry and other disciplines. He gives attention to the revolutionary changes that came about as a result of the work of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Roentgen, and Lavoisier.

Kuhn's work was influencial for rhetoricians, sociologists, and historians (and, in a more muted way, philosophers) for the development of a rhetorical perspective. His view on perception, concept acquisition and language suggest, according to Paul Hoyningen-Huene’s analysis of Kuhn’s philosophy, a cognitive perspective (Nickles 183).

Ethos

Examinations of the ethos of scientists (individually and collectively spawned significant contributions in the field of rhetoric of science. Michael Halloran notes in “The Birth of Molecular Biology” (Rhetoric Review 3, 1984) – an essay that is a rhetorical analysis of James D. Watson and Francis H. Crick’s “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid” – that a large part of what constitutes a scientific paradigm is the ethos of its practitioners. This ethos is about an attitude and a way of attacking problems and propagating claims (Harris "Intro," Landmark xxxi).

In "The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos," Lawrence Prelli provides a systematic analysis of ethos as a tool of scientific legitimation. Prelli's work examines the exchange of information in the court of public opinion. His work provides insight into the ways in which scientific argumentation is legitimized, and thus insight into public science policy. One of the domains of rhetoric is civic life. Rhetorical criticism of science offers much in the investigation of scientific matters that impinge directly upon public opinion and policy-making decisions (Harris "Intro," Landmark xxxiii).

Rhetorical Figures in Science

Corresponding to distinct lines of reasoning, figures of speech are evident in scientific arguments. The same cognitive and verbal skills that are of service to one line of inquiry – political, economic or popular – are of service to science (Fahnestock 43). This implies that there is less of a division between science and the humanities than initially anticipated. Argumentatively useful figures of speech are found everywhere in scientific writing.

Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species offers a means of reconciliation between Mendelian mutation and Darwinian natural selection. By remaining sensitive to the interests of naturalists and geneticists, Dobzhansky – through a subtle strategy of polysemy – allowed a peaceful solution to a battle between two scientific territories. His expressed aim was to review the genetic information bearing on the problem of organic diversity (Ceccarelli 41, 53). The building blocks of Dobzhansky’s interdisciplinary influence that saw much development in two scientific camps were the result of the compositional choices he made. He uses, for instance, prolepsis to make arguments that introduced his research findings, and he provided a metaphoric map as a means to guide his audience (Ceccarelli 57-58). One illustration of metaphor is his use of the term "adaptive landscapes." Seen metaphorically, this term is a way of representing how theorists in two different fields can unite (Ceccarelli 57).

Another figure that is important as an aid to understanding and knowledge is antimetabole (refutation by reversal). Antithesis also works toward a similar end.

An example of antimetabole:

Antimetabole often appears in writing or visuals where the line of inquiry and experiment has been characterized by mirror-image objects, or of complementarity, reversible or equilibrium processes. Louis Pasteur's revelation that many organic compounds come in left-and right-handed versions or isomers as articulated at a 1883 lecture illustrates the use of this figure. He argues in lecture that "life is the germ and the germ is life" because all life contains unsymmetrical/asymmetrical processes (Fahnestock 137-140).

Critique of Rhetoric of Science

Renewed interest today in rhetoric of science is its positioning as a hermeneutic meta-discourse rather than a substantive discourse practice (Gaonkar 25). Exegesis and hermeneutics are the tools around which the idea of scientific production has been forged.

Criticism of rhetoric of science is mainly limited to discussions around the concept of hermeneutics, which can be seen as follows:

Rhetorical hermeneutics is about a way of reading texts as rhetoric. Rhetoric is both a discipline and a perspective from which disciplines can be viewed. As a discipline, it has a hermeneutic task and generates knowledge; as a perspective, it has the task of generating new points of view (Gross Rhetorical 111). The question as to whether rhetorical theory can function as a general hermeneutic, a key to all texts, including scientific texts, is still today a point of interest to rhetoricians.

By understanding how human beings understand each other, texts of natural science can be viewed as a product of human interaction. Conceived in this way, rhetoric of science fosters the potential of rhetorical explanation of all scientific texts, journals and documents. Although natural sciences and humanities differ in fundamental ways, science as enterprise can be viewed hermeneutically as a suite of texts exhibiting a study of knowledge (epistemology) based on understanding (Gross “On Shoulders” 21).

A recent critique about the rhetoric of science literature asks not if science is understood properly, but rather if rhetoric is understood properly. Much dissention around the reading of scientific texts rhetorically stems from the difference between an agent-centered orientation of traditional rhetorical theory that is inconsistent with the postmodern view of subject and its agency (Gross “Intro” Rhetorical 1-13). Detractors of this form of critical or theoretical approach focus on the way rhetoric appears as a thinly veiled language of criticism in such a way that it is applicable to almost any discourse (Gaonkar 33, 69). This quarrel is about how rhetorical theory is seen as a global hermeneutic (Gross “Intro” Rhetorical 12).

Dilip Gaonkar in "The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science" looks at how critics argue about rhetoric, and he unfolds the global ambitions of rhetorical theory as a general hermeneutic (a master key to all texts), with the rhetoric of science as a perfect site of analysis - a hard and fast case.

In his analysis of this 'case', Gaonkar looks at rhetoric's essential character first in traditional sense (Aristotilean and Ciceronian). The he looked at the practice of rhetoric and the model of persuasive speech from the point of agency (productive orientation) or who controls the speech (means of communication). Gaonkar asserts that rhetoric seen as a tradition, and from the point of view of interpretation (not production or agency), rhetorical theory is "thin." The rhetorical tradition is one of practice, while the theory evinces practice and teaching (Gross "Intro" Rhetorical 6-11).

Gaonkar believes that this type of globalization of rhetoric undermines rhetoric’s self-representation as a situated practical art, and in so doing, it runs counter to a humanist tradition. It runs counter to the interpretative function of a critical metadiscourse. If there is no more substance, no anchor, no reference to which rhetoric is attached, rhetoric itself is the substance, or the supplement, and thus becomes substantial, giving rise to the question how well rhetoric functions as interpretative discourse (Gaonkar 77).

Dilip Gaonkar’s provocations have successfully opened the way to a broad reaching discussion that led to the defense of rhetoric analyses of scientific discourse. These provocations concern rhetoric as a metadiscourse as well as its purpose in terms of hermeneutic scholarship. In response to Gaonkar's provocations, various scholars offer a broad reaching defense that produced essays on rhetoric and neo-Aristotileanism and humanism, rhetoric and the model of intentional persuasion. This discussion includes rhetoric’s knowledge-producing capacity (Gross "Intro," Rhetorical 7-8). Components or aspects of rhetoric such as arrangement, style, topoi (topics), audience, ethos, invention, genre and figuration where given much attention in linguistic, philosophical and sociological intellectual circles as seen in their productive output (Harris “Knowing” 173).

Responses to Gaonkar's provocations are many, and a few examples will suffice.

When Gaonkar asks if a theory grounded in practice can be translated into a theory of interpretation, Michael Leff in "The Idea of Rhetoric as Intepretative Practice: A Humanist's Response to Gaonkar" see his views as too extreme, treating as opposites two positions that are in dialectic tension (rhetoric as production and rhetoric as intepretation), and separating intepretation from practice in order to establish a causal, rather than accidental, relationship between rhetoric and the globalalization of rhetoric. Leff echoes Edwin Black's Rhetorical Criticism to illustrate that intepretation itself is part of the tradition (Gross "Intro" Rhetorical 11).

John Angus Campbell in "Strategic Readings: Rhetoric, Intention, and Interpretation" also found in Rhetorical Hermeneutics is a verification of Leff's analysis (113). He argues, however, against Gaonkar's notion of invention and the mediation between producer or writer and the audience of a text. He explains that while indeed hermeneutic practice requires a "metadiscource" since texts require a "redescribing" from the source and from one person to another, and that making something known - in the rhetorical sense - means that it must be "invented," he accuses Gaonkar of committing hermeneutical error when he calls the aim of a "redescription" as a dissolving type of discursive practice into an interpretitive meaning a preferred metadiscourse (114). The differences between Campbell and Gaonkar is one of theory, and not whether agency figures in criticism (115).

Works Cited

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc., 2004.

Baake, Ken. Metaphor and Knowledge: The Challenges of Writing Science. Albany: The State University of New York Press, 2003.

Barker, Peter, Xiang Chen and Hanne Andersen. “Kuhn on Concepts and Categorization.” In Thomas Kuhn. Ed. Thomas Nickles. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.

Bazerman, Charles and René Agustin De los Santos. "Measuring Incommensurability: Are toxicology and ecotoxicology blind to what the other sees?" 9 January 2006. [1].

Bazerman, Charles. “Reporting the Experiment: The Changing Account of Scientific Doings in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1665-1800." In Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies. Ed. Randy Allen Harris. Mahwah: Hermagoras Press, 1997.

Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Campbell, John Angus. "Scientific Discovery and Rhetorical Invention." In The Rhetorical Turn: Inventions and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Ed. Herbert W. Simons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Ceccarelli, Leah. Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.

Fahnestock, Jeanne. Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford UP, 1999.

Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso, 1975.

Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar. “The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science.” In Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. Eds. Alan G. Gross and William M. Keith. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Gross, Alan G. "On the Shoulders of Giants: Seventeenth-Century Optics as an Argument Field." In Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies. Ed. Randy Allen Harris. Mahwah: Hermagoras Press, 1997.

Gross, Alan G. "The Origin of Species: Evolutionary Taxonomy as an Example of the Rhetoric of Science". In The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Ed. Herbert W. Simons. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Gross, Alan G. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990.

Gross A., and William M. Keith. Eds. "Introduction." Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Harris, Randy Allen. “Knowing, Rhetoric, Science.” In Visions and Revisions: Continuity and Change in Rhetoric and Composition. Ed. James D. Williams. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002.

Harris, Randy Allen. Incommensurability. 3 February. 2006. [2].

Harris, Randy Allen. "Introduction." Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies. Ed. Randy Allen Harris. Mahwah: Hermagoras Press, 1997.

Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2001.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Maturana, Humberto R., and Varela, Francisco J. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc., 1987.

Moore, John A. Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1999.

Nickles, Thomas. "Normal Science: From Logic to Case-Based and Model-Based Reasoning." In Thomas Kuhn. Ed. Thomas Nickles. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.

Prelli, Lawrence J. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989.

Toulmin, S. "The Uses of Argument." In The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Eds. Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. Boston: Bedford, 1990.

Next Generation

汉特-曼西自治区

參看

太古洋行

历史

業務

外部链接

高分子

参见

Knight Rider (video game)

Ways to Lose a Life

PB-Soft

SMYAL

External links

Rhetoric of science

Contents

History

Developments and Trends

Epistemic Rhetoric

Argument Fields

Incommensurability

Ethos

Rhetorical Figures in Science

Critique of Rhetoric of Science

See also

Works Cited

Other Readings