Trevor Melia

3 articles
University of Pittsburgh

Loading profile…

Publication Timeline

Co-Author Network

Research Topics

Who Reads Melia

Trevor Melia's work travels primarily in Rhetoric (66% of indexed citations) · 9 total indexed citations from 4 clusters.

By cluster

  • Rhetoric — 6
  • Technical Communication — 1
  • Other / unclustered — 1
  • Composition & Writing Studies — 1

Counts include only citations from indexed journals that deposit reference lists with CrossRef. Authors whose readers publish primarily in venues without reference deposits will appear less central than they are. See coverage notes →

  1. Science, Reason and Rhetoric
    Abstract

    This volume marks a unique collaboration by internationally distinguished scholars in the history, rhetoric, philosophy, and sociology of Converging on the central issues of rhetoric of science, the essays focus on figures such as Galileo, Harvey, Darwin, von Neumann; and on issues such as the debate over cold fusion or the continental drift controversy. Their vitality attests to the burgeoning interest in the rhetoric of science.

    doi:10.2307/358613
  2. The Rhetoric of the Radical Rhetoric of Science
    doi:10.1525/rh.1991.9.4.301
  3. Some Cautionary Strictures on the Writing of the Rhetoric of Science
    Abstract

    he prohferation of papers, programs, and now a journal issue dedicated to the rhetoric of is eloquent testimony to the vitality of what may be called the turn.' The fact that the present writers, working respectively from within a department of Communications and a department of the History and PhUosophy of Science, have for some time been laying the ground work for a joint program in the Rhetoric of Science is evidence of the extent to which they subscribe to the intellectual currents which motivate the rhetorical turn. Nevertheless, the peculiar nature of science itself, the practice thereof, and even its rendition as text, compel us to offer some cautionary strictures against the too easy assumption that scientific texts are as susceptible to rhetorical analysis as are texts in other disciplines. We are aware, of course, that such cautions go somewhat against the tide of opinion, both of some other writers in the present issue of Rhetorica, and increasingly in the humanistic disciplines generally. Lest we be suspected of a hankering for the restoration of an unfashionable and discredited scientism, we offer a caveat and a concession. First, the strictures referred to here are directed at rhetorical

    doi:10.1525/rh.1989.7.1.87