Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson

217 Pages·2001·1.062 MB·English

by  Leah Ceccarelli

Shaping Science with Rhetoric

Shaping Science with Rhetoric
The Cases of Dobzhansky,
Schr¨odinger, and Wilson
Leah Ceccarelli
The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London
Leah Ceccarelli isassistantprofessorofspeechcommunicationatthe
UniversityofWashington.
TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago60637
TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Ltd.,London
2001byTheUniversityofChicago
Allrightsreserved.Published2001
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 1 2 3 4 5
ISBN:0-226-09906-7(cloth)
ISBN:0-226-09907-5(paper)
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Ceccarelli,Leah.
Shapingsciencewithrhetoric:thecasesofDobzhansky,Schro¨dinger,and
Wilson/LeahCeccarelli.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-226-09906-7(cloth:alk.paper)—ISBN0-226-09907-5
(pbk.:alk.paper)
1.Lifesciencesliterature. 2.Rhetoric. 3.Interdisciplinaryapproachto
knowledge. 4.Interdisciplinaryresearch. 5.Wilson,EdwardOsborne,
1929–Consilience. 6.Dobzhansky,TheodosiusGrigorievich,1900–1975
Geneticsandtheoriginofspecies. 7.Schro¨dinger,Erwin,1887–1961
Whatislife? I.Title.
[DNLM:1.InterprofessionalRelations. 2.Research—methods.
3.Communication. 4.Science—history. Q180.55.I48C387s 2001]
QH303.6.C433 2001
507.2—dc21
00-012179
(cid:1)∞
Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofthe
AmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences—PermanenceofPaper
forPrintedLibraryMaterials,ANSIZ39.48-1992.
Contents
Preface ix
1 Inspiring Interdisciplinarity 1
TextsThatSeektoCatalyze Community:AnUnexamined
GenreofScience 3
TheCloseTextual-Intertextual Analysis:CombiningRhetorical
CriticismandHistorical Research 6
I Theodosius Dobzhansky’s Genetics and
the Origin of Species
2 The Initiator of the Evolutionary Synthesis:
Historians and Scientist Weigh In 13
ConflictbetweenDisciplinesand Theories 15
TheEvolutionary Synthesis 19
WhatLaunchedtheSynthesis? 21
TheInfluenceofDobzhansky’sGeneticsandtheOriginofSpecies 24
PreludetoaRhetorical Reading 29
3 A Text Rhetorically Designed to Unite
Competing Fields 31
SimplifyingTheory 31
SurveyingtheResultsofResearch 37
UsingLanguageThatPromotes ConceptualChange 41
AddressingSocial Concerns 45
Conclusions 56
v
vi Contents
II Erwin Schro¨dinger’s What Is Life?
The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell
4 The “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” of the Molecular Biology
Revolution: Assessing the Place of a Text in History 61
TheInfluenceofSchro¨dinger’s Text 63
TheValue ofUntrue,UnoriginalScience 67
OtherLawsofPhysics 75
Preludetoa RhetoricalReading 80
5 A Text Rhetorically Designed to Negotiate Different
Interests and Beliefs 82
Comparisonwith OtherAttempts atInspiring
InterdisciplinaryWork 83
Negotiating CommonGround:TheValue ofPrecision 89
Negotiating ProfessionalGoals:TheAppeal toAmbition 90
Negotiating DisciplinaryLinguisticPractices:
ConceptualChiasmus 92
Negotiating IdeologicalCommitments:Strategic Ambiguity 97
Conclusions 109
III Edward O. Wilson’s Consilience: The Unity
of Knowledge
6 The Controversy over Sociobiology: Scholars Offer
Conflicting Explanations 113
Wilson’sPurpose 113
TheEffect ofWilson’sInterdisciplinary Appeals 116
Explanation 1:WilsonIs Wrong;The CulturalDivideShould
NotBeBridged 119
Explanation 2:CriticsAre Unableto SeetheTruth Because of
PoliticalBias 121
Preludetoa RhetoricalReading 124
7 A Text Rhetorically Designed to Fuel
Interdisciplinary Hostilities 128
A RhetoricofConquest,NotNegotiation 129
AnExplicit CommitmenttoReductionism 139
Equivocation RatherThanProductivePolysemy 145
WhatWilson’sConsilience CouldHave Been 148
IV Speaking to Multiple Audiences
8 The Genre 157
ComparisonofDobzhansky andSchro¨dinger 158
Wilson’sParticipation intheGenre 164
Contents vii
9 Contributions to Four Ongoing Conversations 168
RhetoricofScience 168
RhetoricalInquiry 170
HistoryofScience 177
Interdisciplinarity 179
Bibliography 183
Index 199

Preface
This book is about interdisciplinarity—how scientists reach across disci-
plinaryborderstomotivatecolleagueswithverydifferentintellectualand
professionalcommitmentstoembarkonnewinterdisciplinarylinesofre-
search.Butinterdisciplinarityismorethanthesubjectofthisbook—itis
its purpose as well. In this book I address scholars from my own area of
research—rhetorical inquiry—as well as scientists, historians of science,
and readers from various other areas of research who are interested in
how new interdisciplinarity fields are formed.
This desire to speak across disciplinary borders may have something
to do with my own history of interdisciplinarity. Years ago, when I was
pursuingmybachelor’sdegreeincellularbiologyattheUniversityofCali-
forniaatBerkeley,Itookacourseintherhetoricdepartmentthatsetme
onthepathtowritingthisbook.Iwasabitskepticalaboutthecourseat
first;couldIlearnanythingofvaluefromadepartmentwhoseveryname
stands for the amoral ‘‘empty talk’’ that politicians use when they skirt
the real issues in public debates? A friend who recommended the course
toldmetolookupthewordrhetoricinthedictionarybeforepassingjudg-
ment. I found two definitions: (a) ‘‘mere bombast’’ and (b) ‘‘the study
and/oruseofeffectivespeakingandwriting.’’Thedepartmentofrhetoric
wasnamedafterthelatterdefinition.Inthefirstweekofthecourse,Iwas
shownthatthedisciplineofrhetoricalinquiryispartofanancienttradi-
tion, with roots in Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, a treatise that helps scholars
develop ‘‘an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means
ofpersuasion.’’ Itisadisciplinethatstudiesthe intimateinterconnection
betweenwordsandthoughts;itseeksnottoovercometruthfulstatements
with tricksof language but to recognize thedeep interdependenceof our
linguistic and nonlinguistic worlds.
Although the discipline typically studies speeches or essays from the
publicsphere,itoccasionallyturnsitsattentiontowrittenmaterialsfrom ix