The relevancy of infusing rhetorical theory into a blog advocating for science communication could not come at a more fitting time. Daily it is demonstrated for the American society and broadcast all around the world that "feelings" and spur-of-the-moment decisions seem to be outweighing rationality and reflective policy making.
As an undergraduate student double majoring in both Biology and Editing, Writing, and Media I have experienced two distinct fields: science and writing. Science helps make sense of the natural world. Rhetorical theory aims to make sense of perception. The foundation of the scientific method is to inquire and experiment ethically. Rhetorical theory allows humanity to examine our relationship with morality and reflect on what experiences we can share and which experiences we cannot—an example of Kenneth Burke's concept of Terministic Screens. Furthermore, at the upper levels both writing and science are not about brute memorization but rather using concepts and applying them to think through different situations.
Now, I am not trying to make the argument that science and rhetorical theory are one in the same. Yet, there are significant parallels to where if an evolutionary ecologist and a rhetorical theorist who looks at rhetoric with a interactive web/systems view (aka "ecologies") I would argue the two could have a decent conversation about critical thinking and what it means beyond the desk or lab bench. And still, because traditionally science and writing have been arbitrarily separated, the types of conversations that need to happen are not happening.
The importance of non-formal science education will continue to grow as more people have the means to experiencing or amounting scientific data (i.e. online scientific journals, reports, studies) but lack the expertise to tease out the details and make sense of how it applies to their daily routine. Thus, science communicators will become an important part of this genre because they are the link between experts who devote their lives to a field and the general public. With a recent lack of trust in experts, it is the role of science communicators to show people that in some capacity experts must be taken seriously because not one person can be an expert in everything. This brings the conversation around science communication and scientific literacy to one surrounding genre—what is required of scientific literacy/communicators and what defines it? Anis Bawarshi and their notion of genre as interactive/reciprocal is an excellent way to look at this developing field. Writing in genre takes practice and an appreciation that the genre might change over time. We must provide spaces for this practice to happen and more importantly for people to disagree. Addressing misinformation ("fake news") within the genre of science communication/lay-person scientific literacy must be present but instead of vilifying it, rather use other approaches such as Inoculation Theory against attacks on scientific reasoning.
A major tenet I live my life by is this: critical thinking extends to more than just science and rhetoric. It can help analyze how policy has brought us to the point where we are separating immigrant children from their families and what are the next steps to vote the representatives allowing this out of office. Critical thinking can help you rationalize what to keep and what to sell when you are moving out of your childhood home of the past 14 years. Critical thinking helps you navigate what to say to a friend who loses their father just after her 21st birthday. Now, while these may all be personal situations unique to me, I firmly believe that a time and place to legitimize scientific literacy and reap the benefits of a more conscious public will prove not just substantial, but imperative to the continual development of society.
No comments:
Post a Comment