David R Gruber
I write about bodies, guts, brains, science museums, and the nature of things, naturally.
My newest work can be found at Davegruber.com
My newest work can be found at Davegruber.com
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (43)
Related Authors
Uploads
Papers by David R Gruber
ontology, between words and things, sets new challenges and
invigorations for a Rhetoric of Science that traditionally aims to
“analyze and evaluate the persuasive communications of scientists”
(Ceccarelli, 2017, para. 6). Rhetoricians confront a vibrant, new
intellectual space where scholars across disciplines are seeking to
better account for bodies and moving to “include the materiality of
our ambient environs” in their analyses (Rickert, 2013, p. x). The
question, in light of material expansions, is what is a Rhetoric of
Science, and what are its futures?
In response to the Rhetoric Society of America’s 2018 conference
call for junior and senior scholars to discuss “major developments
in rhetorical studies,” we offer a Feyerabendian innovation-meetsdogma performative session: the junior scholar, representing innovation, argues that Rhetoric of Science must move aggressively beyond a study of texts and scientific language to account for continuous technological, social, and biological entanglements; specifically, expanding the field’s practices to include neuro-cognitive approaches and other forms of experiment. The senior scholar, representing dogma, expresses caution, arguing that the domain of a Rhetoric of Science is still symbols and semiosis; specifically, that looking at “ambient rhetorics” and “entanglements” is another approach, not a foundational shift.
ontology, between words and things, sets new challenges and
invigorations for a Rhetoric of Science that traditionally aims to
“analyze and evaluate the persuasive communications of scientists”
(Ceccarelli, 2017, para. 6). Rhetoricians confront a vibrant, new
intellectual space where scholars across disciplines are seeking to
better account for bodies and moving to “include the materiality of
our ambient environs” in their analyses (Rickert, 2013, p. x). The
question, in light of material expansions, is what is a Rhetoric of
Science, and what are its futures?
In response to the Rhetoric Society of America’s 2018 conference
call for junior and senior scholars to discuss “major developments
in rhetorical studies,” we offer a Feyerabendian innovation-meetsdogma performative session: the junior scholar, representing innovation, argues that Rhetoric of Science must move aggressively beyond a study of texts and scientific language to account for continuous technological, social, and biological entanglements; specifically, expanding the field’s practices to include neuro-cognitive approaches and other forms of experiment. The senior scholar, representing dogma, expresses caution, arguing that the domain of a Rhetoric of Science is still symbols and semiosis; specifically, that looking at “ambient rhetorics” and “entanglements” is another approach, not a foundational shift.
In this talk, I examine the cognitive neuroscience of mirror neurons, arguing that a core group of neuroscience researchers, including Vittorio Gallese, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Giuseppe Di Pelligrino, and Marco Iacoboni, successfully created a conceptually flexible, socially cohesive idea using the new and rhetorical terminology of “the mirror neuron.” ... I suggest that the mirror metaphor is one important reason why mirror neurons have retained their name even though there has been much debate about whether they mirror (all the time or in humans), how they might 'mirror', or whether one type of mirroring or another type has any meaning or important consequence for human understanding or not. "