IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v8y2020i1p129-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating Ethos and Pathos in Scientific Truth Claims in Public Discourse

Author

Listed:
  • Niklas Simon

    (Department of History and Social Sciences, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany)

Abstract

The article seeks to explore the role played by the rhetorical modes of ethos and pathos when scientific knowledge is constructed in public discourse. A case study is presented on the public debate in Germany on possible risks to bees from neonicotinoid pesticides, focusing especially on a detailed analysis of scientific knowledge claims found in texts produced by two lobbying groups involved. The findings indicate distinctive rhetorical patterns in the context of scientific truth claims realising, for example, appeals to concern and the display of scientific competence and integrity.

Suggested Citation

  • Niklas Simon, 2020. "Investigating Ethos and Pathos in Scientific Truth Claims in Public Discourse," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 129-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:129-140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2444
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Friederike Hendriks & Dorothe Kienhues & Rainer Bromme, 2015. "Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dominik Sondern & Guido Hertel, 2019. "Does Paying Back Pay Off? Effects of Reciprocity and Economic Outcomes on Trust Emergence in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1053-1076, December.
    2. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    3. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    4. Justin Sulik & Ophelia Deroy & Guillaume Dezecache & Martha Newson & Yi Zhao & Marwa El Zein & Bahar Tunçgenç, 2021. "Facing the pandemic with trust in science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Lukas Gierth & Rainer Bromme, 2020. "Beware of vested interests: Epistemic vigilance improves reasoning about scientific evidence (for some people)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Friederike Hendriks & Regina Jucks, 2020. "Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 401-412.
    7. Hershkovitz, Arnon & Hayat, Zack, 2020. "The role of tie strength in assessing credibility of scientific content on facebook," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    8. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v:8:y:2020:i:1:p:129-140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.