Risk, Controversy, and Rhetoric: Response to Goodnight

Argumentation and Advocacy

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 34-37

  Miller, Carolyn R ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956380534     PISSN: 10511431     EISSN: 25768476     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00028533.2005.11821638     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Brante, Thomas. “Reasons for Studying Scientific and Science-Based Controversies.” Controversial Science: From Content to Contention. Ed. Thomas, Brante, Steve, Fuller and William, Lynch. Albany: State U of New York P, 1993. 177–91.
2. Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. 1950. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
3. Fuller, Steve. “A Strategy for Making Science Studies Policy Relevant.” Controversial Science: From Content to Contention. Ed. Thomas, Brante, Steve, Fuller and William, Lynch. Albany: State U of New York P, 1993. 107–25.
4. Goodnight, G. Thomas. “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 18 (1982): 214–27.
5. Goodnight, G. Thomas. “Politics: The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument.” Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. Ed. Thomas O., Sloane. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 629–31.
6. Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. 2nd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1970.
7. Machamer, Peter, Marcello, Pera, and Aristides, Baltas. “Introduction.” Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Ed. Peter, Machamer, Marcello, Pera and Aristides, Baltas. New York: Oxford UP, 2000. 3–17.
8. Miller, Carolyn R., “Novelty and Heresy in the Debate on Nonthermal Effects of Electromagnetic Fields.” Rhetoric and Incommensurability. Ed. Randy Allen, Harris. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, forthcoming.
9. Miller, Carolyn R., “The Presumptions of Expertise: The Role of Ethos in Risk Analysis.” Configurations 11 (2003): 163–202.
10. Pera, Marcello. “Rhetoric and Scientific Controversies.” Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Ed. Peter, Machamer, Marcello, Pera and Aristides, Baltas. New York: Oxford UP, 2000. 50–66.
11. Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic, 1962.
12. Sloane, Thomas O., On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric. Washington, DC: Catholic UP, 1997.
13. Waddell, Craig. “The Role of Pathos in the Decision-Making Process: A Study in the Rhetoric of Science Policy.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1990): 381–400.