Introduction
At first sight, all published writing seems to be the same, but as one digs further, they discover that writers use a variety of methods to convey their message and persuade the reader that their point of view is credible and factual. When it comes to scholarly and science writing, writers use a variety of rhetorical techniques to entice the reader. In this light, this paper examines how science academics use pathos, ethos, and logos in ways that other written literature does not.
Ethos in Scientific Writing
Ethos refers to the speaker's legitimacy in a debate, and in scientific research papers, the author's integrity is a major determinant of whether their arguments are true or not. Aspects that affect an authors credibility include; level of education, professional background, and experience (Moss, p.423). For instance, if an article on risk factors of diabetes is written by an author who holds a Ph.D. in dietetics, the information will be considered to be more valid and credible compared to a similar article written by a journalist. Another major aspect that plays a significant role in determining the authenticity and reliability of a scientific, academic paper is whether the paper is peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed articles are those that have been evaluated by other experts in a particular field and therefore, further validating the author's claims (Ceccarelli, p.210). This is in contrast with other forms of writing such as literature since the author's claims do not necessarily have to be validated by other professionals in the field.
Logos in Scientific Writing
Logos refer to the reasons and logical arguments fronted by an individual to convince the reader to adopt a certain point of view. Unlike other forms of writing that usually use deductive reasoning, scientific academic writing uses inductive reasoning as the basis of evidence (Ceccarelli, p.199). This requires the author to use various approaches and draw evidence from many sources to validate their arguments. One such approach is the use of scientific data and previous experiments to help explain a particular phenomenon. Furthermore, scientific writing requires the author to use materials of other researchers on the same topic to illustrate the research gap and the problem that the current study aims to address (Howe, p.440). The use of materials from other researchers helps the author to put across a logical argument that convinces the readers that the opinions expressed in the work are not his but are drawn from the verifiable evidence.
Pathos in Scientific Writing
Pathos are emotional appeals used by authors and speakers to convince the readers and listeners to take their point of view. Examples of pathos include similes, anecdotes, and metaphors and they are usually used in literature and business writing (Moss, p.423). In scientific academic writing, however, authors avoid using emotional appeals especially because science is based on logic and therefore the propositions expressed by authors must be objective and lacking in logical fallacies. In this respect, it is noteworthy to state that scientific, academic writing uses a formal tone and avoids the use of the first person since the opinions and facts expressed are presumed to reflect the scientific stand on the issue as opposed to the author's position (Ceccarelli, p.220).
Conclusion
To sum up, the analysis above has illustrated that there are glaring differences between a scientific, academic journal and other forms of writing. This difference exists in the usage of pathos, ethos, and logos while making scientific arguments. Understanding this distinction helps one to produce scientific academic work that is objective, verifiable, and accurate.
Work Cited
Ceccarelli, Leah. “Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 14.2 (2011): 195-228.
Howe, Kenneth R. “Positivist dogmas, rhetoric, and the education science question.” Educational Researcher 38.6 (2009): 428-440.
Moss, Jean Dietz. “Rhetoric and Science.” The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies (2017): 423.
