| |
| |
| Preface | |
| |
| |
| |
| Inspiring Interdisciplinarity | |
| |
| |
| Texts That Seek to Catalyze Community: An Unexamined Genre of Science | |
| |
| |
| The Close Textual-Intertextual Analysis: Combining Rhetorical Criticism and Historical Research | |
| |
| |
| |
| Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Initiator of the Evolutionary Synthesis: Historians and Scientist Weigh In | |
| |
| |
| Conflict between Disciplines and Theories | |
| |
| |
| The Evolutionary Synthesis | |
| |
| |
| What Launched the Synthesis? | |
| |
| |
| The Influence of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species | |
| |
| |
| Prelude to a Rhetorical Reading | |
| |
| |
| |
| A Text Rhetorically Designed to Unite Competing Fields | |
| |
| |
| Simplifying Theory | |
| |
| |
| Surveying the Results of Research | |
| |
| |
| Using Language That Promotes Conceptual Change | |
| |
| |
| Addressing Social Concerns | |
| |
| |
| Conclusions | |
| |
| |
| |
| Erwin Schrodinger's What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell | |
| |
| |
| |
| The "Uncle Tom's Cabin" of the Molecular Biology Revolution: Assessing the Place of a Text in History | |
| |
| |
| The Influence of Schrodinger's Text | |
| |
| |
| The Value of Untrue, Unoriginal Science | |
| |
| |
| Other Laws of Physics | |
| |
| |
| Prelude to a Rhetorical Reading | |
| |
| |
| |
| A Text Rhetorically Designed to Negotiate Different Interests and Beliefs | |
| |
| |
| Comparison with Other Attempts at Inspiring Interdisciplinary Work | |
| |
| |
| Negotiating Common Ground: The Value of Precision | |
| |
| |
| Negotiating Professional Goals: The Appeal to Ambition | |
| |
| |
| Negotiating Disciplinary Linguistic Practices: Conceptual Chiasmus | |
| |
| |
| Negotiating Ideological Commitments: Strategic Ambiguity | |
| |
| |
| Conclusions | |
| |
| |
| |
| Edward O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Controversy over Sociobiology: Scholars Offer Conflicting Explanations | |
| |
| |
| Wilson's Purpose | |
| |
| |
| The Effect of Wilson's Interdisciplinary Appeals | |
| |
| |
| Explanation 1: Wilson Is Wrong; The Cultural Divide Should Not Be Bridged | |
| |
| |
| Explanation 2: Critics Are Unable to See the Truth Because of Political Bias | |
| |
| |
| Prelude to a Rhetorical Reading | |
| |
| |
| |
| A Text Rhetorically Designed to Fuel Interdisciplinary Hostilities | |
| |
| |
| A Rhetoric of Conquest, Not Negotiation | |
| |
| |
| An Explicit Commitment to Reductionism | |
| |
| |
| Equivocation Rather Than Productive Polysemy | |
| |
| |
| What Wilson's Consilience Could Have Been | |
| |
| |
| |
| Speaking to Multiple Audiences | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Genre | |
| |
| |
| Comparison of Dobzhansky and Schrodinger | |
| |
| |
| Wilson's Participation in the Genre | |
| |
| |
| |
| Contributions to Four Ongoing Conversations | |
| |
| |
| Rhetoric of Science | |
| |
| |
| Rhetorical Inquiry | |
| |
| |
| History of Science | |
| |
| |
| Interdisciplinarity | |
| |
| |
| Bibliography | |
| |
| |
| Index | |