Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2019) Re-framing climate controversy: The strategies of The Hartwell Paper. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. In the public sphere, standpoints often seem to be locked into pro/con constellations. This essay documents the strategies of “pointing out,” narrative and metaphor used in The Hartwell Paper […]
Goodwin, Jean. (Forthcoming, 2018) Effective because ethical: Speech act theory as a framework for scientists’ communication. In Susanna Priest, Jean Goodwin & Michael Dahlstrom (Eds.), Ethics and practice in science communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Comment exercer une autorité experte? Un scientifique confronté aux Sceptiques. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, 15. Retrieved from https://aad.revues.org/2035 [How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics. (2015). How to exercise expert authority: A case study of a scientist facing The Sceptics.] Argumetation theorists’ primary loyalty should be […]
Goodwin, Jean. (2015). Climate scientist Stephen Schneider versus the Sceptics: A case study of argumentation in deep disagreement. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sic Sat. Retrieved from http://rozenbergquarterly.com/issa-proceedings-2014-climate-scientist-stephen-schneider-versus-the-sceptics-a-case-study-of-argumentation-in-deep-disagreement/ Can deep disagreement be managed by argument? This case study examines the 2010 exchange between prominent […]
Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists.
Scientists can earn trust--but only by making themselves vulnerable.
"Consensus" as the strategy selected by scientists associated with the IPCC--a poor rhetorical choice.
October 8, 2018
0