The Rhetoric of Social Science

1
The Rhetoric of Social Science Key Notions from
Weaver, Richard M. (1985). The Ethics of
Rhetoric, Hermagoras. A dilemma No unique
symbologyborrowed it Yet, ignorant of
rhetorical exposition Weaver asks a series of
questions
2

• Weavers Questions
• Does the writing of social scientists suffer from
  a primary equivocation?
• Is social science writing marred by pedantic
  empiricism?
• Does social science writing suffer from
  melioristic bias?
• Do the social scientists lose more than they gain
  by a distrust of metaphor?
• Is the expression of social science affected by a
  caste spirit?

3
Equivocation (double meaning) Tension between
positive and dialectical terms Chair a
positive term? Justice a dialectical
term? Example See page 190
4
Pedantic Empiricism (parading) Analysis for
analysis sake. Everything sounds like an
introduction to the real thing, p. 192 Last full
paragraph on p. 195
5
Melioristic Bias (Improve) Read paragraphs on p.
197 Norman Conquest and Anglo-Saxonstheir
servile role -calf becomes veal -folk becomes
people Government Bureaucracynothing is
incorrigible Social Science discourse becomes
politicalized. -lacks therefore any sense of
responsibility
6
Distrust of Metaphor Oh, the evil of
metaphor -concession to our feeble
imagination -mere decoration -Einstein
the universe is like the surface of an
orange -But, metaphor can be a means of
discovery itself -So, Hamlet becomes better
sociology then a dozen texts on sociology
7
The Caste Spirit (Elitism) Only the an honored
someone can undo it. Solution To realize that
all symbol use is rhetorical and use rhetoric
well and ethically. Or to quote Quintillion
We must become good people communication well.
(a paraphrase)