Scientific Ethos

Communication scholars study ethos as a rhetorical construction, as well as a social or cultural formation. A rhetorically constructed ethos is intended to inspire confidence and trust in the speaker's or writer's good sense, good moral character, and good will, which are, according to Aristotle, the components of ethical demonstration. To reach a large and diverse audience, speakers and writers must engage universal perceptions of good character. Ethos is also understood as the underlying attitude about good or moral character that members of a culture share at any given time, that intersects with that culture's worldview, and that is developed and maintained through a variety of social mechanisms.

Scientific ethos refers more specifically to the rhetorically constructed projection of scientific character in a speech or text, as well as culturally driven notions about the character of science and scientists. The locally constructed scientific ethos opposes and intersects with the cultural constructions in several interesting ways.

The ethical values defining good sense, good will, and good moral character for science and scientists [Page 750]are generated by scientific practice and supported by broader cultural norms. In all scientific fields, actual dishonesty is reprehensible and punishable through professional and judicial routes, yet honest scientists must still, to establish scientific credibility, demonstrate their adherence to the ethical commitments of the scientific community at large through a constructed ethos in their experimental reports, public talks, and grant proposals. Those commitments include disinterestedness, depersonalization, deference, and skepticism.

A scientist who appears prejudicial, dogmatic, narcissistic, or politically partisan will not be viewed as credible—as having good sense, good will, and good moral character as a scientist. Even if a scientist reports on credible and ethical research, he or she risks inviting indignation from peers if the report fails, for example, to give credit where it is due or to adhere to the tacit proscriptions against gratuitous self-promotion.

A credible scientific ethos emerges in even the most seemingly technical arguments and can be a decisive factor in gaining favorable decisions regarding journal publication and grant funding. A scientific ethos is established routinely, in part, through textual features. Passive voice depersonalizes the tone, deflecting attention from actors and their agency and toward the phenomena examined, and also hinders any linguistic strategies of self-promotion. Appropriate use of hedging terms to attenuate the ring of certainty demonstrates the author's disinterestedness. Following the rituals of citation shows respect for the communal production of knowledge and for peers' work. Scientists also convey disinterestedness when they concede to the flaws in their own study and offer alternative interpretations of their data.

The genre, the length requirements, the journal, the potential audience, and the nature of the claim, as well as other social factors—including a scientist's own standing in the community—can figure into decisions about how best to establish credibility.

Context or personal disposition may lead scientific authors to make extraordinary choices about the ethos they want to convey. Scientists making revolutionary claims that confront beliefs in both scientific and popular culture may appeal to ethical investments in both domains. Paradoxically, these circumstances may require authors to be conventional to gain a hearing for unconventional ideas and even radically creative in convincing their audience that they are not, in fact, outrageously radical.

...