Post on 19-Dec-2015
In “Emperor Has No Clothes,” citizens praise a naked emperor for amazing, new attire
In “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf,” citizens tire of responding to crises that don’t exist
For more than a century, scientists have told us of connections between pollutants & emissions, industry, & our environment
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Today, we have another story, a story of global warming
Story told uniformly by scientists around the world long time
U.S. overall skeptical as those viewing the emperor or hearing wolf
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Why are we skeptical?
More to do with rhetorical issues than scientific ones?
Creation & presentation of science--and public reception to science--shaped by stories we hear and tell
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Rhetoric – effective use of language & persuasion/dissuasion, as field of study focuses on audience, purpose, context
Science is rhetorical – constructing knowledge, attempting to persuade us of knowledge
Scientific arguments constructed/shaped by what is said, how it is said, what is not said, to whom, in what context, and with what motivations
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Our country roughly accounts for ◦ 4% of world population◦ 25% of carbon dioxide emissions
Our country, largest contributor to such emissions, not signing on to Kyoto efforts to reduce such emissions
Rhetoric can speak to this situation – offering analysis and call for action
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Focus today on work of several rhetoricians and philosophers to explain some reasons we are where we are in this story
Rhetoricians and scientists “engaged in the process of persuasion in all of their professional and intellectual activities” (Gross)
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
“Mercury from China, dust from Africa, smog from Mexico — all of it drifts freely across U.S. borders and contaminates the air millions of Americans breathe, according to recent research from Harvard University, the University of Washington and many other institutions where scientists are studying air pollution. There are no boundaries in the sky to stop such pollution, no Border Patrol agents to capture it.”
USA Today - 3/13/2005
Human desire for comfort
Oil, gas, coal, “development” of “land” provide comfort if not luxury
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
“Emperor” and “Wolf” stories instruct us not to trust
More likely to trust “science,” but only science that could give us Truth with Capital “T,” with no uncertainties
Science, though, is rhetorical, uncertain, “self-correcting”
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
We want science to convey Truth
Discomfort with concept of science as rhetorical
Rhetorical analysis looks at how science transforms into science policy and also how science itself is created
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Democracy invites all to table, to discussion, to forum
But peer reviewed publications different from published results from think-tanks, especially those that may be affiliated with sponsors with vested interests
Most don’t know distinction between peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed publications
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
“What counts as a fact depends not on science, but on the trust the public bestows on science; what counts as a Fact’s significance is not the significance science bestows, but the significance the public bestows on scientific knowledge” (Gross)
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
“Our access to the facts is mediated by experts” (Gross) and by who “counts” as experts
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Our society likes concept of consensus
Parties with vested interests may produce and promote “cultivated uncertainty” (Banning)
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Our society likes majority rule
Experts and lay people as equals in exploration of concept such as global warming can place expert voices far in margin
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Professional journalists taught to present both or alternative sides of story
Equal press to expert reports and skeptics
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
We are taught to think critically, to question
With what journalist Elizabeth Kolbert reports as the “basic physics . . . [that] have been understood for more than a century,” we still question
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
Government/business/media can point finger at individual and our individual guilt
Rhetorical devices – metonymy & synecdoche – involve using a part to represent whole
Automobile accidents ◦ Cultural consensus is that individual driver is to
blame◦ Even more, the Drunk Driver (part for whole
argument)◦ No fingers then need to point to “automobile
industry, distillers, brewers, bar and liquor store owners, government” (Gross)
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
There is consensus Naomi Oreskes in Science
◦ Tested 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals from ‘93 to ’03
◦ None of the papers disagreed with consensus
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
As Jonathan Wolff states,
“In practice, what matters is not proof but good reasons for action, based on the assessment of all available evidence.”
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell
We have the evidence. Let’s tell new stories so we aren’t left with Oreskes’ question: “There is scientific consensus? Why don’t we know that or believe it?”
Current stories haven’t worked.
Will take all of us - rhetoricians, journalists, scientists, activists - take into account what may be more likely to work.
Let’s make new stories.
Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell