Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson [Paperback]

Leah Ceccarelli (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: July 1, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0226099075 | ISBN-13: 978-0226099071 | Edition: 1

How do scientists persuade colleagues from diverse fields to cross the disciplinary divide, risking their careers in new interdisciplinary research programs? Why do some attempts to inspire such research win widespread acclaim and support, while others do not?

In Shaping Science with Rhetoric, Leah Ceccarelli addresses such questions through close readings of three scientific monographs in their historical contexts—Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937), which inspired the "modern synthesis" of evolutionary biology; Erwin Schrödinger's What Is Life? (1944), which catalyzed the field of molecular biology; and Edward O. Wilson's Consilience (1998), a so far not entirely successful attempt to unite the social and biological sciences. She examines the rhetorical strategies used in each book and evaluates which worked best, based on the reviews and scientific papers that followed in their wake.

Ceccarelli's work will be important for anyone interested in how interdisciplinary fields are formed, from historians and rhetoricians of science to scientists themselves.

Editorial Reviews

From the Inside Flap

How do scientists persuade colleagues from diverse fields to cross the disciplinary divide, risking their careers in new interdisciplinary research programs? Why do some attempts to inspire such research win widespread acclaim and support, while others do not?

In Shaping Science with Rhetoric, Leah Ceccarelli addresses such questions through close readings of three scientific monographs in their historical contexts—Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937), which inspired the "modern synthesis" of evolutionary biology; Erwin Schrödinger's What Is Life? (1944), which catalyzed the field of molecular biology; and Edward O. Wilson's Consilience (1998), a so far not entirely successful attempt to unite the social and biological sciences. She examines the rhetorical strategies used in each book and evaluates which worked best, based on the reviews and scientific papers that followed in their wake.

Ceccarelli's work will be important for anyone interested in how interdisciplinary fields are formed, from historians and rhetoricians of science to scientists themselves.

About the Author

Leah Ceccarelli is an assistant professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Product Details

• Paperback: 192 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; 1 edition (July 1, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226099075
• ISBN-13: 978-0226099071
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,097,934 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Thoughtful and concise, March 30, 2006

By 

Anna F. Thimsen - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger, and Wilson (Paperback)

Ceccarelli examines three cases of scientific synthesis (or lack thereof) based on rhetorical efforts. In each of her three cases, an effort was made to merge fields of inquiry based on larger principles. The first two are success stories, and the third was a failure. Ceccarelli's analysis is tight; her examples are important and well-chosen. This book is relatively accessible for those who do not have a scientific background and are curious about the role that rhetoric plays in scientific inquiry. It is also detailed enough to provide substance for scientific professionals in the fields of biology and physics who would like to know more about the history of how these fields were constituted.