9/27
"Writing in Knowledge Societies" was all about rhetorics concerning scientific writing and a concept called metonymy, which is replacing a word with another name that is associated with the original. The text explains a person uses metonymy when they are attempting to explain complex ideas to their audience. Using metonymy will turn a complex idea into simpler forms, kind of like using layman's terms. I believe this is the single most important thing when you are writing for a wide audience because you want everyone to be able to understand your writing. If you use too many complex words or ideas, people who don't understand will immediately become uninterested and you just lost a whole section of the audience.
Also, I found it funny how MacDonald used metonymy and rhetoric in his research paper to convince the referee that two weak pieces of evidence to make one strong case and in the conclusion it ended with "Recent research in the rhetoric of science shows that rhetoric does play a central role in the creation of knowledge in science, and it can also make possible the perception of the entities that may become what we think of as the “brute facts of nature.” (Starke-Meyerring, 191). This showed that sometimes it's not about the data but how it is present that will make or break a case. Here I am thinking science is all about accurate data only, but rhetorics plays a part in it too because they are trying to convince the audience that what they are saying holds some kind of value.
I used lingustic approach because that is the easiest way to get my ideas out clearly. And visual, i used a confused science gif because thats how i felt while reading this text, too much was going on.
