The article deals with the shortcomings of a common argumentative strategy in popularizing science – rationalist bias, which relies on the enlightenment ideal of informing and rational persuasion. Some data shows that adherence to pseudoscientific or esoteric concepts is not always a result of low educational or intellectual level – sometimes it is the more educated denialists hold on to their beliefs more firmly and reject scientific explanations. This situation implies the need of searching new argumentative strategies – this is the main goal of this article. The article shows that the trends of the past few decades in the philosophy of science and in the theory of argumentation also push to a rethinking of the rationalist bias. In the philosophy of science, the ideals of logical positivism were revised in the light of constructivism, which showed that science is not a purely rational activity which is doing according to strict methodological rules. In the theory of argumentation, there has also been a revision of the formal-logical approach, and a turn to models of real discussions, which take into account the rhetorical and pragmatic aspects of argumentation. In light of this, a number of tactics have been analyzed – appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, appeal to emotions, appeal to benefit (or appeal to consequences) – which are sometimes attributed to argumentative errors, but a closer examination shows that these techniques can play a constructive role in popularizing science. Appealing to authority is inevitable in today’s world, where experts are indispensable in many matters. At the same time, it is important to avoid abuse of authority (as in the absolutization of the role of science in scientism). The appeal to tradition is connected with the conventionalist theory of truth, and it can also be a powerful safeguard against amateurs or charlatans who propose some “revolutionary” theories or discoveries. Appealing to emotions allows evoking interest from an audience and motivating to take action on practical issues. Despite stereotype that rationality opposes emotions, the emotional aspect can actually be combined with the rational, and then the argument can have a stronger communicative impact. Another tactic – an appeal to benefit – encourages us to consider the motives of our interlocutors. The classical approach to argumentation emphasizes the value of impartiality and considers appeals to interests to be a mistake. But in real communication, where the search for truth is not the main goal for everyone, taking into account the interests that underlie a certain belief helps to find the most acceptable way of presenting information for the audience. And finally, the criticism of rationalist bias has to do with the very method of justification. Popularizers should better rely not on the classical ideal of a completely convincing proof, but rather on the principle of abduction, which involves choosing the best of available explanations, even if that explanation is not perfect.This analysis of argumentative tactics can be useful in developing effective argumentative strategies in the popularization of science.
Voinarovska et al. (Tue,) studied this question.