Growing attention to a rift between epistemology and ontology, between words and things, sets new challenges and invigorations for a Rhetoric of Science that traditionally aims to “analyze and evaluate the persuasive communications of scientists” (Ceccarelli, 2017, para 6). Rhetoricians confront a vibrant, new intellectual space where scholars across disciplines are seeking to better account for bodies and moving to “include the materiality of our ambient environs” in their analyses (Rickert, 2013, p. x). The question, in light of material expansions, is what is a Rhetoric of Science, and what are its futures? In response to the Rhetoric Society of America’s 2018 conference call for junior and senior scholars to discuss “major developments in rhetorical studies,” we offer a Feyerabendian innovation-meets-dogma performative session: the junior scholar, representing innovation, argues that Rhetoric of Science must move aggressively beyond a study of texts and scientific language to account for continuous technological, social, and biological entanglements; specifically, to expand the field’s practices to include neuro-cognitive approaches and other forms of experiment. The senior scholar, representing dogma, expresses caution, arguing that the domain of a Rhetoric of Science is still symbols and semiosis; specifically, that looking at “ambient rhetorics” and “entanglements” is another approach, not a foundational shift.

ABSTRACTThe most important contemporary development in rhetoric for the theory of argumentation is Jeanne Fahnestock's program of figural logic, the ruling insight of which is that figures epitomize arguments. Working primarily with the antimetabolic formula at the heart of Gregor Mendel's paper “Experiments in Plant Hybridization,” I investigate the figural bases of the logic anchoring this foundational essay in genetics. In addition to antimetabole, the formula also depends crucially on ploche, polyptoton, onomatopoeia, antithesis, synecdoche, reification, and metaphor.

Thirty years before the beginning of the still ongoing cognitive revolution, Kenneth Burke articulated a universalist program of verbal resources that falls into close synch with many of the findings and principles of that revolution. In this paper, I connect Burke’s program to the insights of Jeanne Fahnestock in her work on figuration and argumentation and argue that cognitive rhetoric in this mode can undergird rhetoric of science.

Wayne Booth’s model of reader response as “friendship” would seem to be severely tested by the writings of Hunter Thompson, because this author often portrayed himself as someone who was anything but ingratiating. Yet we can indeed apply Booth’s theory to Thompson’s texts, especially if we distinguish their protagonist from what Booth referred to as “the implied author.”

Writing in A Milieu of Utility: The Move to Technical Communication in American Engineering Programs, 1850–1950 by Teresa C. Kynell, 2nd ed. Stamford, CT: Ablex, 2000. 134 + xix pp. Rhetorical Figures in Science by Jeanne Fahnestock. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. xiv + 248 pp.

Alan W. France. Composition As a Cultural Practice. Westport, CN: Bergin and Garvey, 1994. 171 pages. Mark Wiley, Barbara Gleason, and Louise Wetherbee Phelps, editors. Composition in Four Keys: An Inquiry into the Field. Mountain Valley, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1995. 608 pages. A. L. Becker. Beyond Translation: Essays in Modern Philology. University of Michigan Press, 1995. 431 + ix pages. Sherrie L. Grandin. Romancing Rhetorics: Social Expressivist Perspectives on the Teaching of Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 1995. 166 pages. Mike Rose. Possible Lives. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1995. 454 pages. $24.95. Richard McKeon. On Knowing—The Natural Sciences. Compiled by David B. Owen. Edited by David B. Owen and Zahava K. McKeon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 405 pages. $65.00 hardcover, $17.95 paper. Jasper Neel. Aristotle's Voice: Rhetoric, Theory and Writing in America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. 259 pages. $24.95.

Eugene Garver. Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1994. xii + 325 pages. Helen Fox. Listening to the World: Cultural Issues in Academic Writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994. xxi +161 pages. W. Ross Winterowd. A Teacher's Introduction to Composition in the Rhetorical Tradition. Urbana: NCTE, 1994. 130 pages. Marcello Pera. Discourses of Science. Translated by Clarissa Botsford. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 250 pages. Pera, Marcello, and William R. Shea, eds. Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric. Canton, MA: Science History, 1991. Perelman, Chaïm, and L. Olbrechts‐Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1969. Planck, Max. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. Trans. F. Gaynor. London: Williams and Norgate, 1950. Simons, Herbert, ed. The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990. Haig Bosmajian, Metaphor and Reason in Judicial Opinions. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992. Fredric G. Gale, Political Literacy: Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Possibility of Justice. Interruptions: Border Testimony(ies) and Critical Discoursed). Albany: State U of New York P, 1994. Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, eds. The Rhetoric of Law. Amherst Series in Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought 4. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1994.

Arthur Inman was a very strange man. Part of this strangeness has to do with his massive, engrossed, graphic legacy-a sprawling diary of well over sixteen million words, filling one hundred fifty-five manuscript volumes, omnivorously chronicling the wreck of the Hindenberg and the only known 'Petrified Ham,' the rise of Hider and the crash of the stock market, the depression and Mr. Farnsworth's Flea Circus, the sexual life of his domestics, the Lindberg baby-snatching, the Coconut Grove fire, Joe Louis' heavyweight tide defeat of Max Baer, the tribulations of stockpiling rations during the war, the perils of a small-time dancer in Hollywood, the deaths of Joe McCarthy and Franklin Roosevelt, the menu of the Jackson Day benefit dinner for the Democrats, the escapades of an oily little picaro, and, always, his own distorted, phobic, neurotic life, his rantings, ragings, and assaults, his aches, pains, compulsions, his enemas, stomach pumpings, and bromide ingestions, his delusions, desires, and hatreds, his pettiness, his machinations, his racism, his vicious nightmares, his consuming failures at poetry, at business, and at suicide, and what he considered his two crowning successes, his diary and, finally, his death. Why? Why would Arthur Inman devote his life to this monstrous fungoid growth (Gross, 1985)? The long answer is an involved psychological study, one that might be too short of external evidence to reach a satisfactory conclusion. For all his incessant self-probing, strapping his childhood and his nightmares to the examining table and poking them until they twitch, Inman provides neither and adequate account of his condition nor a solid grounding on which to base one. He places tremendous emphasis on a speech his father delivered on the dangers of masturbation (a human life, in those few minutes ... was-and I do not exaggerate-as much as ruined [90]).1 He was tortured for most of his life by dreams of the taunts and tensions he endured at an all-male private school. He resented his mother's moral injunctions. But surely others suffered these Victorian vestiges in turn of the century childhoods and lived normal, less obsessed, less self-absorbed lives. There is no trauma, no single event that explains Inman's peculiarities-at least none that he records-and the complex of all that he reports does not seem