Tylor Scott

Tarez Graban

ENC4404_0002

22 April 2021

It Will Get Done… Eventually

After an astounding four months of enrollment in a course labeled Citizen Science in a

Digital Age, I would contend that I have finally synthesized a proper definition of “citizen

science. Suffice to say, this definition endeavors to disambiguate any concepts that the

uninitiated public may dare to rule out as esoteric. For the purposes of this reflection, any

reference to citizen science will translate to: a practice in public participation in scientific

research, generally involving non-experts whose engagement with matters of scientific discourse

spells out an increase in the public’s comprehension of otherwise complex matters. The

ENC4404 course utilized several texts whose concepts rendered practices necessary for engaging

in the sphere of community or civic science. Most notably, the neutral point of view clause

discussed in the module regarding crowd sourced intelligence would have implications for my

future works and the use of “levels” to develop policy arguments.

The first major assignment I had been tasked with in the Citizen Science course resulted

in a misfire. I had skimmed a rather in depth rubric and synthesized a blog post that would have

nothing to do with the actual task. Initially, I had produced something akin to an op-ed that I

would later go back to denounce as largely incorrect in its claims. This, however, would have

consequences for my more recent public policy argument. In that original blog post, I had

condemned the Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine as the “D student of vaccines”, due to its
relatively low efficacy. I would later learn that the criticism I had was unwarranted as the

reported efficacy rate was not the sole barometer for comparison among vaccines. This readiness

to engage in this topic despite my lack of expertise signified issues of discourse in which I

misunderstood the intended frame of reference in certain statements and gave decisive weight to

different evidence. (Kauffer 59) However, I would go on to determine that not all public

argumentation is fueled by back and forth presentation of conflicting evidence or by any sort of

logical appeal. In Finding the Good Argument or Why Bother With Logic Jones writes:

For many, logic simply means reasoning. To understand a person’s logic, we try to find

the structure of their reasoning. Logic is not synonymous with fact or truth, though facts

are part of evidence in logical argumentation. You can be logical without being truthful.

This is why more logic is not the only answer to better public argument.

These were issues that I would later start observing in other grounds of public argumentation,

including my analysis of the discourse regarding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the

Public Policy Argument.

In the same vein as changing my perspective on argumentation, no longer seeing it as

something to be won, the Wikipedia Project embraced a similar spirit of collaboration. The task

of giving communities access to knowledge without oversimplification while being constrained

by the parameters of a crowd-sourced intelligence sandbox, had the challenge of maintaining

neutrality. Science is indiscriminate. Ron Von Burg describes the marks of “good science” in

Localized Science Sentinels: TedX and The Shared Norms of Scientific Integrity wherein

science is based on expertise. Expert speakers possess credentials from universities, their

research is peer reviewed, and their claims have support from other experts in the field. These

features are bolstered by legitimate scientific process and accompanied by verifiable claims and
research. My grand revelation this semester that being a non-expert, the onus of conferring

scientific or technical information in a palatable presentation to the masses lay with myself.

Often writing with my peers in academia in mind, I operated with the assumption that my

audience had a baseline understanding of issues in the public sphere. Discourse Coalitions,

Science Blogs, and The Public Debate Over Global Climate Change described this as a

science co production model wherein, "... certain members of the public, in possessing relevant

lay knowledge and competencies in areas of science of particular interest to them, are capable of

engaging with professional scientists in setting priorities for research, interpreting the

significance of findings, and applying the resulting knowledge in the best interests of society"

(Smart 160). I would argue that the general public is not disinterested in these topics but rather

the information is not delivered in an attractive package. These topics matter to citizens and are

of consequence and the science just needs to “accommodate”. Vonburg describes a need for this

accommodation:

The transmuted expertise of the non-scientist could help improve the quality of public

discussions of science, especially when such public deliberations are infused with

problematic scientific and pseudoscientific claims" (Vonburg 179).

As a citizen trained in writing practice, I determined the role citizen scientists ought to play is as

intermediary between scientific and non-expert logos. The task at hand entails eloquently

conveying information or reporting on politicized or scientific dialectic as these are matters that

impact entire societies. Due to the scope of certain issues, the ramifications of not being engaged

may be severe.

One of my earliest submissions in this course included a quote from a children’s cartoon.

“Lies are just facts that haven’t been repeated enough. And if you don’t believe that, you will
soon because lies are just facts that haven’t been repeated enough.” I would contend that this

reference still hits in the conclusion of a course that required conducting an amount of research

into science and politics I had previously never been tasked with.
 Works Cited

FAHNESTOCK J. Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts. Written

Communication. 1986;3(3):275-296. doi:10.1177/0741088386003003001

Kaufer, David S. “A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments.” College

Composition and Communication, vol. 35, no. 1 (Feb 1984), pp. 57-70.

Jones, Rebecca. “Finding the Good Argument, or Why Bother with Logic?” Writing Spaces:

Readings on Writing, Volume 1, edited by Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky. Parlor P, 2010.

Available via WAC Clearinghouse at http://wac.colostate.edu/books/writingspaces1/.

Smart,Graham.“DiscourseCoalitions,ScienceBlogs, and The Public Debate over Global Climate

Change.”GenreandthePerformanceofPublics,editedbyMaryJoReiffandAnisBawarshi.UtahStateU

P,2016,pp.157-177.