Schiappa, Edward

English

Poroi

Thomas S. Kuhn and POROI, 1984

Iowa Research Online

Poroi 
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis 
and Invention 
ISSN 2151-2957 
Volume 10 Issue 2 DOI: 10.13008/2151-2957.1198 
Article 3 
12-30-2014 
Thomas S. Kuhn and POROI, 1984 
Edward Schiappa 
MIT, schiappa@mit.edu 
Copyright © 2014 Edward Schiappa 
Recommended Citation 
Schiappa, Edward. "Thomas S. Kuhn and POROI, 1984." Poroi 10, Iss. 2 (2014): Article 3. https://doi.org/
10.13008/2151-2957.1198 
Hosted by Iowa Research Online 
This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by Iowa Research Online. It has been accepted for 
inclusion in Poroi by an authorized administrator of Iowa Research Online. For more information, please contact lib-
ir@uiowa.edu. 
Thomas S. Kuhn and POROI, 
1984 
Edward Schiappa
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 
Poroi 10,2 (December 2014
On March 28, 1984, Thomas S. Kuhn presented a paper titled 
“Rhetoric and Liberation” at the University of Iowa Humanities 
Symposium on the 
was a ten-page response to a panel featuring papers by Richard 
Rorty (1989), Philip J. Davis 
symposium organizers
McCloskey (1987).  
marked as such with the notation, “Not for quotation or 
paraphrase” on the
been available in the Kuhn collection held by the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology’s Institute Archives and Special Collections, 
it has never been published.
Kuhn’s “Rhetoric and Liberation” adds to the
of an important moment in rhetorical and humanistic scholarship.
The Iowa Symposium in 1984 signaled the start of the Project on 
Rhetoric of Inquiry (POROI).
unprecedented gathering of scholars from a variety of di
and produced the important book, 
Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public 
Affairs (Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey, 1987).  The scope of the 
three papers to which 
paper argued that solidarity 
understood as the goal of intellectual inquiry 
and Hersh produced what would become a canonical paper on 
“Rhetoric and Mathematics” (1987).  The presentation by Nelson, 
Megill, and McCloskey was an expansive view of “Rhetoric of 
Inquiry” (1987).  Collectively, the papers represent the ambitions 
and enthusiasm associated with the “Rhetoric of Science” (Gross, 
                                         
1 Copies of Kuhn’s paper are filed in at least three locations in the MIT 
Kuhn Archive (MC 240): “Publications” in Box 23, folder 20; Letter 
exchange with Richard Rorty in Box 22, folder 14; and folde
with the Iowa Conference in Box 13, folders 9 & 14.  One copy in Box 13 
has minor corrections marked presumably by Kuhn
 
 
 
 
) 
Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Kuhn’s paper 
and Reuben Hersh (1987), and the 
, John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and D. N. 
Kuhn regarded the paper as a draft, and it was 
 first page.  As a result, though the paper has 
1 
 historical record 
  The Symposium was an 
sciplines 
The Rhetoric of the Human 
Kuhn responded was quite broad.  Rorty’s 
rather than “objectivity” should be 
(Rorty, 1989).  Davis 
           
rs associated 
 himself. 
  
Schiappa 2 Poroi 10,2 (December 2014) 
1990, 1996), “Big Rhetoric” (Gross and Keith, 1997; Schiappa, 
2001), and the “Rhetorical Turn” (Simons, 1990).2 
Kuhn initially agreed to the publication of “Rhetoric and 
Liberation” as part of the book planned by Nelson, Megill, and 
McCloskey.  However, the paper presented by Rorty, “Objectivity or 
Solidarity,” had been committed for publication elsewhere and 
could not be included in the book featuring the Iowa Symposium.  
Instead, Rorty and the book’s editors agreed to substitute “Science 
as Solidarity” for the volume.  Though the arguments in the two 
Rorty papers overlapped to a certain degree, Kuhn felt that the 
differences were large enough to require greater revision to his 
response than he had time to do.  Accordingly, he withdrew his 
paper from the book.  It has remained unpublished until now.3 
Kuhn’s paper will be of interest to philosophers, historians, 
language theorists, and scholars of rhetoric. “Rhetoric and 
Liberation” reflects the unease Kuhn felt with being identified as an 
inspiration to those who equate the rhetorical turn with liberation 
in Rorty’s sense.  At the same time it gestures toward an 
understanding of scientific and mathematical language that is 
rhetorical through and through.   
It is hoped that the publication of Kuhn’s “Rhetoric and 
Liberation” facilitates the work of scholars interested in the 
historical development of rhetorical scholarship on inquiry, as well 
as those interested in exploring Kuhn’s incomplete project on 
scientific language and rationality.4 
 
                                                    
2 Arguably, the roots of the “rhetorical turn” can be traced to Kenneth 
Burke and Chaïm Perelman, whose works were described as representing 
a “New Rhetoric” that was influential in English, Philosophy, and 
Communication Studies beginning in the 1950s.  Burke and Perelman 
largely exempted science from their descriptions of rhetoric, but after the 
publication of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, a 
growing number of rhetoric scholars began to explore the idea that all 
human knowledge is rhetorically constituted, including scientific 
knowledge.   
3 The narrative provided in this paragraph was constructed based on 
letters by Kuhn, Rorty, and Nelson found in the Thomas S. Kuhn papers, 
MC 240, box 13, folder 9, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute 
Archives and Special Collections, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
4 At various times in the 1980s and 1990s, Kuhn refers to a book in 
progress that he hoped would update and develop his views on scientific 
language, realism, and truth (see, for example, Kuhn, 1991).  That book 
was never completed. 
Schiappa 3 Poroi 10,2 (December 2014) 
Reference List 
Davis, P. J. and R. Hersh. “Rhetoric and Mathematics.”  In Nelson, 
J. S., A. Megill, and D. N. McCloskey (Eds.) The Rhetoric of 
the Human Sciences. (Pp. 53-68). Madison: University of 
Wisconsin Press, 1987. 
Gross, A.G.  The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press, 1990.  Revised ed. 1996. 
Gross, A.G., and W. M. Keith (Eds.) Rhetorical Hermeneutics: 
Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. Albany: 
State University of New York Press, 1997. 
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Chicago: 
University of Chicago Press, 1962. 
------ “The Road Since Structure.” In A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. 
Wessels (Eds.) PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial 
Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume 2 
(Pp. 3-13). East Lansing MI: Philosophy of Science 
Association.  Reprinted in J. Conant and J. Haugeland, (Eds.) 
The Road Since Structure. (Pp. 90-104). Chicago: University 
of Chicago Press, 1990. 
Nelson, J.S., A. Megill, & D.N. McCloskey, “Rhetoric of Inquiry.”  In 
Nelson, J. S., A. Megill, & D. N. McCloskey (Eds.) The 
Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. (Pp. 3-18.) Madison: 
University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. 
Rorty, R.  “Science as Solidarity.”  In J. S. Nelson, A. Megill, & D.N. 
McCloskey (Eds.) The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences.  (Pp. 
38-52). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. 
Rorty, R. “Solidarity or Objectivity?”  In Objectivity, Relativism, 
and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1.  (Pp. 21-34). 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.  
Schiappa, E. “Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric.” 
Philosophy and Rhetoric 34 (2001): 260-274. 
Simons, H.W. (Ed.) The Rhetorical Turn: Invention and 
Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry.  Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1990. 


https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/article/id/3441/download/pdf/

Thomas S. Kuhn and POROI, 1984

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Poroi

Iowa Research Online