Science is inarguably necessary to communicate to the general public, but how to go about doing so is subject to controversy amongst the scientific community. In "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts," Jeanne Fahnestock addresses this complication through an intricate look into "the shift that occurs between the original presentation of a scientist's work and its popularization." (Fahnestock, 277) This same concept is discussed more specifically in M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Jacqueline S. Palmer's piece "Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America."
Each piece focuses largely on the adaptation of complex scientific information to more accessible forms. The intention of accommodating science, as Fahnestock puts it, is to attempt to "bring the enormous gap between the public's right to know and the public's ability to undersatnd." The "public" as she puts it, is comprised of the non scientific majority of people. Publications like National Geographic, and TIME magazine began to include more coverage of scientific subjects around the time both of the articles were published. (Note: both were published in the late 80's.)
These publications differ in many ways to their more scientifically sound predecessors. These articles, are more often than not a mix between news and human interest, the latter taking priority in what makes it to print. For example, as Fahnestock says that in scientific papers "significance is largely understood." This is not the case however, when the science switches genres as its rhetorical situation is changed in order to accommodate a larger audience. In this switch scientific posts become largely epidectic, that is their main purpose is to celebrate a new scientific finding rather than validate facts. As "Ecospeak" understands, this "ultimately ensures that the facts of science will be distorted or reinvented altogether when they are presented in the [news] media." (Killingsworth, Palmer 134) There is less trust in one's audience in this situation, therefore the author adjusts that information to be more conclusive and glamorized, and far more groundbreaking. Type 4 or 5 words that imply definite conclusions and unprecedented research such as "only" and "the first" are added to significantly dumbed down descriptions of scientific order in the hopes that the dramatic depiction of data and new findings will attract a more vast audience. Such terms would never be utilized by the scientist, as he or she would then risk invalidation by jumping to conclusions about his or her findings. However, "becuase he [or she] fears so such challenge, the accomodator is far more certain." To address the public on a scientific issue it must be able to gain the traction of human interest. People are not interested in a "possible scientific finding," they want significance. They want groundbreaking scientific studies which will either directly affect or improve their lives. This understanding creates an entire genre of scientific accomodation journalism, but has a nasty tendency to discredit the scientists themselves, or as Fahnestock puts it, "Accommodators will leap to results, whereas the original authors stay on the safe side of the chasm."
An important concept in the study of accommodating scientific texts is the stasis theory, which defines and orders the kinds of questions that can be asked. The questions are "What exactly happened and who did it?", What was the nature of definition of the act?", "What is the quality of the act?", and "Who has jurisdiction in this case and what action is called for?" Scientific reports "engage an issue in the first conjectural stasis: 'does a thing exist? Did an event really occur?" In contrast, accomodations typically move on prematurely to the latter stases, which speeds up a scientific explanation and in turn may go as far as to invalidate it as a whole. But as Fahnstock says, this is "an inevitable consequence of changing the audience for a piece of information and thus the purpose of relating it and thus the genre of the discourse that conveys it." A wider audience is created, but scientific accuracy is put at risk.
Is this ethically sound though? Fahnestock claims that "the science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he [or she] simply selects only the information that serves his [or her] epideictic purpose," but the perspective presented in "Ecospeak" seems to be far less accepting of this, noting that glamming up scientific research implies that "science must solve human problems and thus must transcend its own version of objectivism.... worthy of being reported in the press." The media more often than not focuses on the drama of science in the case that it is reporting about it at all. "Ecospeak" delves into an elaborate discussion of Global Warming and the media's reaction to it. It is an understood fact in journalism that people are drawn to crisis, "the topic of environmental degradation has become a certified issue, largely because it is perceived as having crisis potential."
Is the accommodation of scientific texts for broader audiences in this way ethically sound? Is it an underestimation of the ability of people to read and understand science, or rather a sad truth?
Is it worth risking the validity of scientific texts in order to allow it to pertain to a mass audience? Or should scientific journalism seise to exist in the shadow of real data and reporting?
Both of these texts were written in the late 1980s. How has the accessibility of scientific information changed since then, primarily considering the widespread access to the internet?
Each piece focuses largely on the adaptation of complex scientific information to more accessible forms. The intention of accommodating science, as Fahnestock puts it, is to attempt to "bring the enormous gap between the public's right to know and the public's ability to undersatnd." The "public" as she puts it, is comprised of the non scientific majority of people. Publications like National Geographic, and TIME magazine began to include more coverage of scientific subjects around the time both of the articles were published. (Note: both were published in the late 80's.)
These publications differ in many ways to their more scientifically sound predecessors. These articles, are more often than not a mix between news and human interest, the latter taking priority in what makes it to print. For example, as Fahnestock says that in scientific papers "significance is largely understood." This is not the case however, when the science switches genres as its rhetorical situation is changed in order to accommodate a larger audience. In this switch scientific posts become largely epidectic, that is their main purpose is to celebrate a new scientific finding rather than validate facts. As "Ecospeak" understands, this "ultimately ensures that the facts of science will be distorted or reinvented altogether when they are presented in the [news] media." (Killingsworth, Palmer 134) There is less trust in one's audience in this situation, therefore the author adjusts that information to be more conclusive and glamorized, and far more groundbreaking. Type 4 or 5 words that imply definite conclusions and unprecedented research such as "only" and "the first" are added to significantly dumbed down descriptions of scientific order in the hopes that the dramatic depiction of data and new findings will attract a more vast audience. Such terms would never be utilized by the scientist, as he or she would then risk invalidation by jumping to conclusions about his or her findings. However, "becuase he [or she] fears so such challenge, the accomodator is far more certain." To address the public on a scientific issue it must be able to gain the traction of human interest. People are not interested in a "possible scientific finding," they want significance. They want groundbreaking scientific studies which will either directly affect or improve their lives. This understanding creates an entire genre of scientific accomodation journalism, but has a nasty tendency to discredit the scientists themselves, or as Fahnestock puts it, "Accommodators will leap to results, whereas the original authors stay on the safe side of the chasm."
An important concept in the study of accommodating scientific texts is the stasis theory, which defines and orders the kinds of questions that can be asked. The questions are "What exactly happened and who did it?", What was the nature of definition of the act?", "What is the quality of the act?", and "Who has jurisdiction in this case and what action is called for?" Scientific reports "engage an issue in the first conjectural stasis: 'does a thing exist? Did an event really occur?" In contrast, accomodations typically move on prematurely to the latter stases, which speeds up a scientific explanation and in turn may go as far as to invalidate it as a whole. But as Fahnstock says, this is "an inevitable consequence of changing the audience for a piece of information and thus the purpose of relating it and thus the genre of the discourse that conveys it." A wider audience is created, but scientific accuracy is put at risk.
Is this ethically sound though? Fahnestock claims that "the science accommodator is not telling an untruth; he [or she] simply selects only the information that serves his [or her] epideictic purpose," but the perspective presented in "Ecospeak" seems to be far less accepting of this, noting that glamming up scientific research implies that "science must solve human problems and thus must transcend its own version of objectivism.... worthy of being reported in the press." The media more often than not focuses on the drama of science in the case that it is reporting about it at all. "Ecospeak" delves into an elaborate discussion of Global Warming and the media's reaction to it. It is an understood fact in journalism that people are drawn to crisis, "the topic of environmental degradation has become a certified issue, largely because it is perceived as having crisis potential."
Is the accommodation of scientific texts for broader audiences in this way ethically sound? Is it an underestimation of the ability of people to read and understand science, or rather a sad truth?
Is it worth risking the validity of scientific texts in order to allow it to pertain to a mass audience? Or should scientific journalism seise to exist in the shadow of real data and reporting?
Both of these texts were written in the late 1980s. How has the accessibility of scientific information changed since then, primarily considering the widespread access to the internet?
No comments:
Post a Comment