Abstract
This paper applies the argumentative perspective to the concept of scientific fact by combining the rhetorical and the sociological perspectives. The scientific fact is presented as an entity having both an epistemic and a social meaning, and the scientific paper is presented as a discourse that has both an epistemic value and role related to knowledge and to the description of the ‘world,’ and a social value, fulfilling social roles within its relevant discourse community. The discussion leads to some insights into the connection between scientific language and facts. Scientific language reflects the degree of facticity of the utterance at every stage: various linguistic and discursive elements reflect the current factual status of the utterance. This conception of fact is dynamic and open to discussion, and it is presented from the author’s point of view. On the other hand, language, or the choice of language usage, creates facticity in the sense of social acceptance: by using language, the researcher reports on his belief that what he is describing is indeed a fact. The essence of the scientific paper as an argumentative text is that its point of departure is the faith of the speaker in the facticity of the new information, and its rhetorical aim is to convince the audience, based on its disciplinary rationality, to accept that same faith and thereby usher the new claim into the shared disciplinary body of knowledge.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amossy, R. 2002. Introduction to the study of doxa. Poetics Today 23(3): 369–394.
Anscombre, J.-C. (ed.). 1995. Théorie des topoi. Paris: Kimé.
Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Gitelman, Z. 1995. Immigration and Identity: The resettlement and impact of Soviet immigrants on Israeli politics and society. The Susan and David Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies.
Gross, A. 1985. The form of the experimental paper: A realization of the myth of induction. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 15(1): 15–26.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. The language of science. London and New York: Continuum.
Hunston, S. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Advanced in written text analysis, ed. M. Coulthard. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: Toward a constructivist and econtextual theory of science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Livnat, Z. 2006. La rhétorique de l’objectivité: le rôle de l’auteur dans l’écriture scientifique. Questions de Communication 9: 95–121.
Myers, G. 1985. Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science 15: 593–630.
Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pera, M. 1994. The discourses of science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Perelman C.H., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans: Wilkinson, J., Weaver, P. 1969).
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre analysis, english in academic and research settings. Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Livnat, Z. The Concept of Scientific Fact: Perelman and Beyond. Argumentation 23, 375–386 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9151-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9151-1