Skip to main content
Log in

The Concept of Scientific Fact: Perelman and Beyond

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amossy, R. 2002. Introduction to the study of doxa. Poetics Today 23(3): 369–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anscombre, J.-C. (ed.). 1995. Théorie des topoi. Paris: Kimé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. The language of science. London and New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunston, S. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Advanced in written text analysis, ed. M. Coulthard. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K.D. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: Toward a constructivist and econtextual theory of science. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livnat, Z. 2006. La rhétorique de l’objectivité: le rôle de l’auteur dans l’écriture scientifique. Questions de Communication 9: 95–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. 1985. Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. Social Studies of Science 15: 593–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts, J. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pera, M. 1994. The discourses of science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zohar Livnat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9151-1

Keywords

Navigation