Describing scientific concepts to a wider audience of readers can be a challenge for many academics. Especially for those who are engaged in natural sciences, the language of research of which is often drastically different from what many can understand. However, authors can use a variety of rhetorical means to frame their arguments and appeal to evidence. This approach means not only the selection of simpler vocabulary and constructions but also special techniques. In this paper, I argue that the article by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Elusive Theory of Everything, is an example of how scholars use storytelling and value arguments to appeal to a wider audience. I analyze the article in relation to Michael Carter’s value arguments in science research and Joshua Schimels’s message box tool to show how they are utilized by the author to reach the reader. These techniques allow Hawking and Mlodinow to present scientific arguments to a broader audience by simplifying information.
Although the article does not provide a clear argument or thesis at the beginning that would fully describe the purpose and content of the article, it is possible to analyze the central claim. The central claim or argument of the article is that the perception of reality depends on the observation model. Hawking and Mlodinow say: “In our view, there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism…” (para. 8). In particular, the authors use the semi-explicit argument to demonstrate the importance of information and the reasons for considering it (Carter 309). Constructing a value argument is critical to illustrate the significance of an article and research for the reader, to indicate a specific reason why the material should be read. Hawking and Mlodinow provide the following claim: “These examples bring us to a conclusion that provides an important framework with which to interpret modern science” (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 8). Thus, the authors emphasize that this conclusion is important because it allows interpreting modern science. In this case, Hawking and Mlodinow explain that the perception of reality based on different models is essential for current science.
Authors further build a story framework by presenting their central claim to attract the reader. In particular, the article has a long enough introduction before Hawking and Mlodinow present their argument. According to Schimel, this strategy is necessary for building a story, and one can consider this technique as a massage box that authors use (198). This technique makes it possible to frame the story by describing the central tenets of research or theory in an accessible way. First, the article presents a problem that is explicitly articulated through a rhetorical question: “How do we know that the reality we perceive is true?” (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 1). Then, the authors explain why the answer to this question and the search for a solution to the problem is important to the reader. In particular, they point out that people can also perceive reality in a distorted form throughout their lives, which supposedly causes concern for many (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 2). Later, they propose a solution to the stated problem, which is to “adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism” (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 8). Finally, the authors present the benefits of such a solution, which is that using this approach, people can continue to explore the world without getting stuck at a dead end. Thus, Hawking and Mlodinow frame the story for the reader and lead to the central argument and its discussion.
The intended readers of this article are a wide audience that does not have special knowledge in the field of physics. Hawking and Mlodinow are extremely effective in reaching out to intended audiences by providing a wealth of contextual information that allows readers to understand what is being discussed. In particular, the authors present a broader scope of the problem by appealing to the efforts of physicists to create a unified model (Carter 313). Regarding the argument presented at the end of the introduction, Hawking and Mlodinow try to amplify it for the reader using a few sentences that clarify the information (Carter 315-316). This allows appealing to a wide audience who may not be familiar with the concepts presented in the article and have no idea about their application.
Additionally, the article begins with a story, which immediately attracts the reader to pay attention to the article, as it makes it easier to understand the subject of the discussion. The goldfish in the aquarium example is used as a cross-cutting to construct all the arguments of the article, which helps the reader relate to the subject. For example, Hawking and Mlodinow note that “the goldfish could formulate scientific laws from their distorted frame of reference that would always hold true” (para. 10). This storytelling helps to greatly simplify the reader’s perception of the content of the article and key concepts. At the same time, the authors assert the validity of their arguments by supplementing simple examples with scientific facts that allow the reader to be convinced of their competence. Each physical concept is also supported by a simpler explanation, which helps both the intended and potential audience to be aware that Hawking and Mlodinow understand the subject.
The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with an alternative view of the perception of reality. In particular, Hawking and Mlodinow address the problem of the lack of a unified model for describing the observed reality. Additionally, they note that “to describe the universe we have to employ different theories in different situations” (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 15). Thus, the authors explain that despite the generally accepted views, there can be many versions of reality, each of which has the right to exist. Such a concept is especially important in the context of what Hawking and Mlodinow emphasize that multiple versions can be the nature of the universe, that is, the truth (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 15). And in this case, they convince readers that the reality that they perceive with the help of their feelings is, in any case, subjective and depends on the situation.
The authors of the article use a variety of effective rhetorical strategies to make the article more convincing and understandable to the audience. First of all, pathos is used in the first paragraph, which allows the reader to engage emotionally. The authors give the details of the story, saying, “A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy” (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 1). This strategy allows the audience to believe in the realism of the given episode and its importance to the world and specific people. The authors also use the same goldfish story to explain concepts, which not only makes perception easier but also creates some emotional connection. The goldfish becomes a guide for the reader, who experiences all the concepts for itself. Additionally, Hawking and Mlodinow try to relate to the audience through a pop-culture example that is familiar and understandable to many (para. 9). Thus, these elements of pathos help the authors establish their arguments.
Authors in particular often mention various concepts from physics that can be difficult for a wide audience to understand. Then they actively use descriptions in order to convey the essence of the idea to the reader in as much detail as possible. For example, they introduce the concept of quantum physics and explain its laws and relation to the subject of the article (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 7). The authors structure their narrative in a logical manner, moving from one important physical concept to another. They first explore quantum physics, then alternate reality theory and string theory, adding a few examples to each description. It is noteworthy that they also look at the concepts from different angles and applications. For example, in explaining the theory of alternative realities, Hawking and Mlodinow give an example from both physics and the everyday world (para. 12). This allows the authors to maintain interest and an emotional connection with the reader while emphasizing the personal importance of these concepts. At the same time, they assert the scientific application of the theory, which greatly enhances the validity of arguments.
Hawking and Mlodinow use logos to support the primary argument by building a logical narrative and illustrating the point. In particular, they present the concept of model-dependent perception of reality first through simple examples and generic descriptions. They further deepen their narrative by presenting various concepts and theories that serve as evidence for their perspective. Additionally, the authors constantly refer to everyday life to engage the reader in the proposed theory. Ultimately, they arrive at the most complex and comprehensive of theories and synthesize information in conclusion. In particular, they note that each theory has its own version of reality, but the model-dependent theory states that it is acceptable and preferable (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 15). Thus, they contrast the described theory with the main one, which is discussed in the article, to show that there is diversity but to emphasize the superiority of a certain concept.
The evidence is the discussion of the concepts existing in physics and the opposition of their model-dependent view. In particular, Hawking and Mlodinow construct their argument by describing string theory or M-theory and later highlight the problems associated with them (para. 13-14). Thus, the authors support their idea that none of them can “describe every aspect of the universe” (Hawking and Mlodinow para. 13). This opposition of popular and generally accepted views to an alternative point of view allows the article to convince the reader that model-dependent theory is more appropriate. At the same time, Hawking and Mlodinow do not discuss the possible difficulties associated with the application of this concept. This aspect can significantly reduce the value of their evidence since it does not allow considering the weaknesses of the theory.
An article by Michael Carter helps in particular to understand the choice of rhetorical means made by the authors. In particular, the paper explains in detail how the argument is constructed and from what elements it is constructed. In relation to the article by Hawking and Mlodinow, this is especially useful as it lacks an explicit argument and contains an extensive context. Using the Carter article, it is possible to identify the key parts of the argument and discover the central claim, which would be difficult to do without the information presented. The material allows one to analyze how the different parts of the argument function to provide the audience with a correct understanding of the content of the work and to attract attention.
Works Cited
Carter, Michael. “Value Arguments in Science Research Articles: Making the Case for the Importance of Research.” Written Communication, vol. 33, no. 3, 2016, pp. 302-327.
Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. “The Elusive Theory of Everything.” Scientific American, 2010, Web.
Schimel, Joshua. Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded. Oxford University Press, 2011.