Science and Rhetoric

I like to think that the human faculties of reason reveal the universe exactly how it is, but that is impossible.  We have a limited range of physical stimuli that we can sense, and even that information is filtered by the brain.  However, those clever scientists out there still do their best achieve the closest approximation to the true truth.

Scientists propose theories based on presupposed facts and assumptions.  If facts existed independently of human interference, there would be no need to deliberate the subject.  We know that is not the case.  Most theories take years from their inception to be agreed upon by the scientific community as "fact", and much longer for the general public who is not as affluent. Some longtime theories accepted as fact are later overturned when new 'facts' are introduced, i.e. a geocentric model of the solar system.  Some theories regarded as bogus later become accepted as fact, i.e. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. People must be convinced of the idea.

In the perfect world, reality would be fixed, and there would be nothing we could do to modify or change it.  While there is a true reality, we can only approximate it with our limited knowledge.  All we know of reality is an interpretation of the external world constructed by the mind.  Thus, whatever we know of reality, according to Miller, "is created by individual action and by communal assent."  A mutual agreement is necessary to validate a truth or fact.  If ideas accepted as fact can be other than they are, rhetoric, by definition, is an integral part of science.

I experience this on a weekly basis.  Exhibit A:  Lap Reports.  There is not much I dread more than writing a lab report.  I spend more time writing damn lab reports than anything else, but still get worse grades than even on tests.  I have to convince the grader that I performed the experiment properly, and prove that the experimental results match the theory.  The raw data means nothing until I put words to it and give it meaning, or what I think is a meaning.  The grader tends to think otherwise.  The point is, if you can't explain a scientific idea, then it means nothing.  An audience (the grader) must be convinced.