Abstract
An analysis is provided for one possible practical link between rhetorical and social scientific inquiry. That link is found in the rhetoric of the reasoned social scientific fact. Understanding this point of intersection involves grounding a rhetorical theory of how to create and to evaluate arguments (a rhetorical theory of invention and judgment) in the practical problems that confront contemporary social scientists during their efforts to construct reasoned social facts. The applicability of this invention and judgment framework to analysis of the rhetoric of social science is illustrated with reference to a controversy over the legitimacy of rules theoretic explanations of human communication processes. Implications of the practical link between rhetorical and social scientific inquiry are then drawn out.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, E.: 1972, ‘Implications and Explications,’Journal of Communication 22, 317–319.
Cushman, Donald P., and G.C. Whiting: 1972, ‘An Approach to Communication Theory: Towards Consensus on Rules,’Journal of Communication 22, 217–238.
Cushman, Donald P., and B.W. Pearce: 1977, ‘Generality and Necessity in Three Types of Theory About Human Communication, With Special Attention to Rules Theory,’Human Communication Research 3, 341–353.
Cushman, Donald P., D. Dietrich, and B. Valentinson: 1982, ‘Rules Theory of Interpersonal Relationship,’ in F. Dance (ed.),Comparative Theories of Human Communication, Harper & Row, NY, pp. 90–107.
Delia, Jessie: 1977, ‘Alternative Perspectives for the Study of Human Communication: Critique and Response,’Communication Quarterly 25, 46–63.
Duhamel, Albert P.: 1949, ‘The Function of Rhetoric as Effective Expression,’Journal of the History of Ideas 10, 345–353.
Ehninger, Douglas: 1968, ‘On Systems of Rhetoric,’Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 134–144.
Fay, B., and D. Moon: 1972, ‘What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Science Look Like?’Philosophy of Social Science 7, 209–277.
Habermas, J.: 1970, ‘On Systematically Distorted Communication,’Inquiry 13, 205–218.
Hunter, J.F.: 1974, ‘The Possibility of a Rational Strategy of Moral Persuasion,’Ethics 84, 185–200.
Lessnoff, M.: 1974,The Structure of Social Science, London, George Allen.
McKeon, R.: 1951, ‘Philosophic Differences and the Issue of Freedom,’Ethics 61, 105–135.
McKeon, R.: 1969, ‘Gibson Winters, Elements for a Social Ethic: A Review,’The Journal of Religion 49, 77–84.
Mead, G.H.: 1934,Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Nicotera, Ann: 1992,Communication in Friend and Mate Relationship, NY, SUNY Press.
Pearce, W.B.: 1973, ‘Consensual Rules in Interpersonal Communication: A Reply to Cushman and Whiting,’Journal of Communication 23, 160–163.
Prelli, L.: 1989,A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse, Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina Press.
Prelli, L.: 1990, ‘Rhetorical Logic and the Integration of Rhetoric and Science,’Communication Monographs 57, 315–322.
Solmsen, F.: 1941, ‘The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric,’American Journal of Philosophy 62, 33–50.
Weber, M.: 1964,The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cushman, D.P., Kovacic, B. The rhetoric of the reasoned social scientific fact. Argumentation 8, 33–47 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710702
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710702