There’s No Such Thing as a Scientific Controversy

References

• Besel, R. D. (2008). Communicating climate change: Climate rhetorics and discursive tipping points in U.S. global warming science and public policy. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(11), 4543.
   Google Scholar
• Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Boucher, P. (2013). Things, names, judgments, and the LRS lens: A critical realist analysis of the biofuel controversy in the United Kingdom. Science Communication, 35(2), 241–265. doi:10.1177/1075547012454596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterfield, H. (1965). The Whig interpretation of history. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring.
   Google Scholar
• Cassin, B. (2014). Sophistical practice: Toward a consistent relativism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228. doi:10.1353/rap.2010.0222
   Google Scholar
• Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296. doi:10.1177/0306312702032002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crick, N., & Gabriel, J. (2010). The conduit between lifeworld and system: Habermas and the rhetoric of public scientific controversies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40(3), 201–223. doi:10.1080/02773941003614464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Donato Rodríguez, X., & Bonilla, J. Z. (2014). Scientific controversies and the ethics of arguing and belief in the face of rational disagreement. Argumentation, 28(1), 39–65. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9300-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVasto, D., Graham, S. S., & Zamparutti, L. (2016). Stasis and matters of concern: The conviction of the L’Aquila Seven. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(2), 131–164. doi:10.1177/1050651915620364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edbauer, J. (2005). Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 5–24. doi:10.1080/02773940509391320
   Google Scholar
• Endres, D. (2009). Science and public participation: An analysis of public scientific argument in the Yucca Mountain controversy. Environmental Communication, 3(1), 49–75. doi:10.1080/17524030802704369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahnestock, J. (1997). Arguing in different forums: The Bering crossover controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 53–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Fahnestock, J. (2005). Rhetoric of science: Enriching the discipline. Technical Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 277–286. doi:10.1207/s15427625tcq1403_5
   Google Scholar
• Fleck, L. (1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, S. (2013). Manufactured scientific consensus: A reply to Ceccarelli. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 16(4), 753–760. doi:10.1353/rap.2013.0048
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. doi:10.2307/2095325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodnight, G. T. (2005). Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry. Argumentation & Advocacy, 42(1), 26–29. doi:10.1080/00028533.2005.11821636
   Google Scholar
• Goodnight, G. T. (2012). The personal, technical, and public spheres: A note on 21st century critical communication inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(4), 258–268. doi:10.1080/00028533.2012.11821776
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. S. (2015). The politics of pain medicine: A rhetorical-ontological inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, A. G. (1995). Renewing Aristotelian theory: The cold fusion controversy as a test case. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81(1), 48–62. doi:10.1080/00335639509384096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, A. G. (1997). On the shoulders of giants: Seventeenth-century optics as an argument field. In In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science. Case studies (pp. 19–38). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, A. G. (2005). Scientific and technical controversy: Three frameworks for analysis. Argumentation & Advocacy, 42(1), 43–47. doi:10.1080/00028533.2005.11821640
   Google Scholar
• Harris, R. A. (1997). Introduction. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. xi–xlv). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, R. A. (2005). Rhetoric and Incommensurability. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003). Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on hm Collins and Robert Evans, ‘the third wave of science studies’. Social Studies of Science, 33, 389–400. doi:10.1177/03063127030333004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? from matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225-248. doi:10.1086/421123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewenstein, B. V. (1991). Preserving data about the knowledge creation process: Developing an archive on the cold fusion controversy. Science Communication, 13(1), 79–86. doi:10.1177/107554709101300105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyne, J., & Howe, H. F. (1997). “Punctuated equilibria”: Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Case Studies (pp. 69–86) New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Mendelson, M. (2002). Many sides: A protagorean approach to the theory, practice and pedagogy of argument. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (2005). Risk, controversy, and rhetoric: Response to Goodnight. Argumentation & Advocacy, 42(1), 34–37. doi:10.1080/00028533.2005.11821638
   Google Scholar
• Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421–440. doi:10.1177/0963662506065558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paroske, M. (2009). Deliberating international science policy controversies: Uncertainty and AIDS in South Africa. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95(2), 148–170. doi:10.1080/00335630902842053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prelli, L. (1997). The rhetorical construction of scientific ethos. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science: Case studies (pp. 107–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A. (1986). Controversies as informal technology assessment. Science Communication, 8(2), 349–371. doi:10.1177/107554708600800216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiappa, E. (2012). Defining marriage in California: An analysis of public & technical argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(2), 211–215. doi:10.1080/00028533.2012.11821773
   Google Scholar
• Segal, J. (2005). Health and the rhetoric of medicine. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shackley, S., & Wynne, B. (1996). Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(3), 275–302. doi:10.1177/016224399602100302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, K., & Walsh, L. (2012). “No one yet knows what the ultimate consequences may be” How Rachel Carson transformed scientific uncertainty into a site for public participation in Silent Spring. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(1), 3–34. doi:10.1177/1050651911421122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, L. (2013). Scientists as prophets: A rhetorical genealogy. New York, NY: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Zagacki, K. S., & Keith, W. (1992). Rhetoric, topoi, and scientific revolutions. Philosophy & Rhetoric 25(1), 59–78.
   Google Scholar
• Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85–103. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar