Rhetorical Elements In Physics Academic Writing
Introduction
This paper will use an article from the American Journal of Physics titled “Water Bottle Flipping Physics” as an example of how academic findings (or arguments) are presented in the field of Physics. This will be accomplished by identifying and analyzing rhetoric elements and traits from the article and relating them to the 3 Rhetorical Appeals (Ethos, Pathos, Logos), John Swales’ Create a Research Space (CARS), and finally Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation.
The American Journal of Physics was started in 1933, with the goal of publishing articles that are educational, interesting, and useful to their audience. Their audience consists of anyone interested in physics who’s looking to expand their knowledge beyond their specialties. Specifically, this is often university students and faculty, and other researchers.
Summary of Article
The article “Water Bottle Flipping Physics” is about rotational motion, a sub-discipline of Classical Newtonian Mechanics. The author starts out the article by chronicling the story of how the water bottle flipping challenge became a viral sensation. Essentially, people became infatuated with trying to flip partially filled water bottles and getting them to land right side up. To many, such an activity may seem simple or trivial, but in actuality there are significant physical phenomena at work. The authors created an experiment to gather data to explain what’s occurring. They found that the angular velocity of the bottle (the rate at which it is spinning) is dramatically reduced because of the water sloshing around inside the bottle. The cancelation of rotational movement allows the bottle to have a very vertical descent which is ideal for successfully landing. After gathering and analyzing the data gathered, the authors finish off the article by giving details to optimize the chances of successfully landing the bottle right side up.
Rhetorical Analysis
I. Three Rhetorical Appeals
Aristotle believed that there were three elements by which every convincing argument is made. These are the three rhetorical appeals: pathos, ethos, and logos. An examination of the article for these elements will reveal which rhetorical appeals are most commonly used when in physics academic arguments.
A. Pathos
Pathos is an appeal that incites the audience’s imaginative sympathies, in other words an appeal to the reader’s values and beliefs. Physics is built upon quantifiable evidence and so as one might guess; the pathos rhetorical appeal is seldomly found in physics academic writing.
B. Ethos
Much more commonly used is ethos. Ethos is all about establishing the author’s credibility to the reader. This is done in two ways, outright introducing the authors, and more subtly through specific language which demonstrates the author’s knowledge of the subject. The first way can be seen on the first page of the “Water Bottle Flipping Physics” article, right above the abstract, where the authors are listed. As this quote demonstrates, the authors of articles typically list the current position they hold and where it is located, followed by any previously held positions. This establishes credibility while also giving an avenue for readers to contact the authors should they have any concerns or questions. Sometimes authors list which academic degrees they hold and from which institutions they acquired that degree. Listing the authors is generally the only time in physic academic writing when ethos is so easily noticed.
The second method for establishing credibility is the level of knowledge the author demonstrates through the language and notation they use and how they use that to address their audience. Basically, they use big, smart sounding words without scaring away the reader. However, when establishing credibility this way it is necessary to keep the intended audience in mind while writing. If the technical jargon and mathematics are too far above the audience, they would be unable to follow the author and thus quickly lose interest. On the other hand, if the writing is too rudimentary it would feel like a waste of time, perhaps even an insult to some. The intended audience of the water bottle flipping article was mainly students, thus the writers included a fair number of definitions and descriptions that physics PhD’s would not need, but students would. Being able to convey knowledge at the level of one’s intended audience is a testament to the writing skills of the authors, further establishing their credibility. Clearly by introducing the authors and catering the information presented to the indented audiences’ level of knowledge, the author can establish their credibility, successfully using the ethos rhetorical appeal.
C. Logos
Logos is an appeal to logic and reason, through facts, figures, data, or statistics. Many times, “because” clauses, or “cause and effect” clauses are good indications of logos. As stated before, physics is built upon quantifiable evidence. Thus, logos is heavily used in physics academic arguments and is the most common of the three rhetorical appeals. The authors of the water bottle flipping physics article used a detailed experimentation setup, figures/data, cause and effect, and finally an in-depth analysis of the data to make a logical appeal to the reader.
The article gives a very detailed description of the experimentation setup. Outlining the process of the experiment, materials used, conditions, perimeters, etc. is imperative when writing quality scientific papers. Without this knowledge, the audience would be unable to determine the validity of the article. During the experimentation explanation is when authors of physics articles address any limitations in their process that may become evident when conducting the experiment. The author then addresses them and either attempts to resolve them or takes them into consideration during the analysis of the data. In the Water Bottle Flipping article, after the author of this paper detailed the difficulty of measuring the center of mass of water moving inside a rotating container, they introduced a sort of control group in the form of a tennis bottle with tennis balls inside, since the tennis balls did not shift as much inside the container.
Next, the figures and data. Throughout the article, there are many diagrams and graphs which make the information easier for the audience to process. Regardless of the level at which the author is writing to, presenting data in a graphical way is a constant. Conveying information in that way is simply much easier on the author and the reader, and the more the reader understands the more convincing an argument is. The third way the authors use logos is through cause and effect, this is very evident in the article where the authors are describing what happens during the flipping of the water bottle. “The motion is decomposed into translation of the center of mass and a rotation around the center of mass. This decomposition is natural since the only external force is gravity, which exerts no torque around the center of mass. ”
Cause and effect is persuasive because, as in this example, cause and effect allows the author to guide the reader to a specific event or time. The author must make sure the reader reaches the conclusion the author makes. Otherwise the argument would seem choppy, hard to follow, and above all not persuasive.
Finally, analysis. When it comes to the analysis of data the arguments tend to have a logical flow to them, almost like drawing a map. The author must lay out every detail (unless it’s something trivial). Detailed explanation ensures that reader can follow along and make sure there are no mistakes the writer missed. Similarly, in certain areas, especially in arguments about theories, the author must address multiple viewpoints. This is crucial because conclusions reached using flawed methods are generally incorrect as well as useless. The authors of the water bottle flipping article dedicated the last few pages of the article to analysis. In their analysis they give a step by step walkthrough of the derivations of the formulas they used to analyze the data gathered.
II. Create a Research Space – CARS
The second rhetorical analysis tool comes from John Swales’ “Create a Research Space (CARS) Model of Research Introductions”. In his article he studied 48 natural and social science journal articles, from which he determined and defined that there are three “moves” that the majority of introductions made. By analyzing the article for these moves, it will become evident that John Swales’ techniques are very effect rhetoric tools for writing introductions in physics articles.
A. First Move
The first “move” is establishing a territory, this is can be done in several different ways, such as claiming centrality, making sweeping statements on the topic, and/or reviewing previous research. At the beginning of the second paragraph of the article, there is a prime example of the first move in the form of making a sweeping statement or generalization. “Rotational physics often involves rather counterintuitive phenomena like the rotation of cats in free-fall or Olympic divers, and the remarkable water bottle flip is no exception. ” It would have been off putting to the reader if the author were to start off by explaining the complexities of sign notation in rotational motion and the odd effects that stem from that. Which is why in this quote the authors summarize the sub-discipline of rotational motion into just a few words and even gives an example of where one might expect to encounter it so that the reader can relate.
B. Second Move
The second “move” is establishing a niche. There are four ways of doing this: point out gaps in prior research, counter-claiming, raising questions, or continuing customs. The water bottle flipping article lacks an example of the second move; however, that does not mean that it is not used in other physics articles. In fact, this move is commonplace when discussing cutting edge theories. Pointing out other evidence, poking holes in analysis, and questioning of research and methods are crucial to the vetting of theories. It is only after a theory has undergone thorough scrutiny that it will become widely accepted in the physics community.
C. Third Move
Occupying a niche is the third and final “move”. This move is achieved through a series of steps. First is outlining the purpose or announcing present research, second is announcing principle research, and third is indicating the structure of the article. The third paragraph of the article starts out with, “In this paper, we demonstrate how the water bottle flip can be used in the classroom…” This was a prime example of outlining the purpose. Following that the author describes how the research was conducted and then the rest of the paragraph expresses how the article is structured. Doing this lets the reader know the end goal, so that during the argument they constantly relate what is being said to the final purpose. Even though only two of the three moves were present in the water bottle flipping article, all of John Swales’ moves are viable options for introducing the reader to the topic when writing physics academic arguments.
III. Bitzer
Lloyd F Bitzer’s “The Rhetorical Situation”, he proposes the idea that rhetorical responses (writings, speeches) are only called into existence by a rhetorical situation. In other words, a rhetorical response only exists when there is a rhetorical situation, but a rhetorical situation exists with or without a response. To determine if the “Water Bottle Flipping Physics” article is rhetorical, it must first be shown that a rhetorical situation exists within the context of the article. “Rhetorical situation may be defined as a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence. ” From Bitzer’s definition, it can be derived that there are three crucial elements that make up rhetorical situation, exigence, audience, and constraints, each of which must be rhetorical in their own right for the situation to become rhetorical. Exigence is any problem that exists in the world, for it to be rhetorical it must be able to be rectified or positively modified. As with many physics articles, the “Water Bottle Flipping Physics” article first defines the problem it is addressing. “Why does there exist an optimal amount of water in the bottle for best flipping?” This problem may not seem exceptionally important to most, but nonetheless it is a problem. Furthermore, it is possible to solve or rectify this problem. Rhetorical exigence is clearly present. The second element is audience. For this element to be rhetorical, it must be demonstrated that the author can influence the audience’s decisions or actions. After pages of analysis the authors of the article establish a conclusion that a 20-40% water ratio gives the best chance of a successful upright landing. After reading this article any reader who was to go out and attempt flipping the water bottle would fill it between those percentages. Thus, the author has influenced the actions of the reader. The only element left to establish in the article is constraints. Constraints can be anything that limits the derived actions and decisions from the writing. In this article, the major constraint is the intended audience’s level of knowledge. As stated in a previous section, the authors simplified some aspects of the experiment, which was beneficial in relating to the less educated reader, yet at the same time may have limited how accurate the results would be received. The rhetorical element of constraints is present in the article. As clearly shown above, all three of Bitzer’s elements for a rhetorical situation are present and subsequently responded to. Therefore, the arguments in the “Water Bottle Flipping Article” are rhetorical responses to the rhetorical situation initially established in the article.
Conclusion
The “Water Bottle Flipping Physics” article, from The American Journal of Physics, is a prime example of the rhetorical techniques used when writing physics academic articles. When writing physics articles is a good idea to use Aristotle’s rhetorical appeals Ethos and Logos, which establish the author’s credibility and give a logical progression to the argument. Another powerful technique is the application of John’ Swales three moves, establishing a territory, establishing a niche, and occupying a niche. Each of those three is a viable option to introducing the articles topic to the reader. The final notion to keep in mind when writing physics articles is to use Bitzer’s elements for a rhetorical situation to build a logical and fulfilling rhetorical response. These rhetorical techniques ensure that physics articles convey the information the author desires while still being appealing and persuasive to the intended audience.
