This article explores rhetorical practices underlying productive deliberation about climate change. We analyze discussion of climate change on a Reddit subforum to demonstrate that good-faith deliberation---which is essential to deliberative democracy---exists online. Four rhetorical concepts describe variation among this subforum's comments: William Keith's distinction between 'discussion' and 'debate,' William Covino's distinction between good and bad magic, Kelly Oliver's notion of ethical response/ability, and Krista Ratcliffe's notion of rhetorical listening. Using a three-part taxonomy based on these concepts, we argue that collaborative climate change deliberation exists and that forum participation guidelines can promote productive styles of engagement.

This article uses data obtained from a 2-year study—observation, survey, written- and verbal-artifact analysis, and interviews—of an interdisciplinary organization of pain management professionals to illustrate the analytic advantages of Mol and Latour's multiple-ontologies theories over incommensurability theory in understanding interdisciplinary practice. We demonstrate that pain science and medicine encompass a variety of practices that transcend disciplinary boundaries in ways not accounted for with incommensurability theory. After explicating multiple ontology theory and illustrating its analytic potential, we conclude by recommending a postplural model for inquiry into rhetoric of science.