Arthur Caplan Discourse

Arthur L. Caplan, in his news article, “Distinguishing Science from Nonsense,” warns the audience about the uncertain economic future of the United States of America due to the abandonment of science within society. Further, Caplan’s purpose is to inform the audience how the dwindling importance of science in children is not only due to schools, but also due to American culture. Therefore, Caplan uses a combination of rhetorical devices to not only warn and inform the public about the importance of science, but to also engage them to an extent that persuades the audience to take action.

Caplan ability to recognize and specifically target his audience amplifies the effectiveness of the article in terms of engagement. In this case, Caplan’s posts his paper in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is a newspaper targeted to college and university attendees (students, faculty, staff etc.). Therefore, now knowing his target audience, Caplan mentions different types of post-secondary educated individuals in his article, so that the specific audience feels engaged with the article. This is exemplified when Caplan uses the words, “students,” “medical experts,” “scientists,” and “scholars” throughout his

article – all typical attendees at post secondary institutions.

As stated above, Caplan engagement with the audience is further amplified through the use of the rhetorical device called pronoun point of views. This device pulls the audience into the article by using pronouns that directly refers to the reader. In this case, Caplan uses third person plural point of views, through the continuous use of the pronouns “we” (x13) and “our” (x11). For example, at the beginning of the article, Caplan compares (another rhetorical tool) the dwindling American student’s science and math skills to other nations around the world: “we [United States] trailed Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Britain, Latvia, and Vietnam, among many other nations.” However, Caplan’s use of the pronoun “we” in the quotation portrays how it is not only the US that is losing - the audience/readers are losing as well.

As mentioned above, the effectiveness of Caplan’s writing is further strengthened through the combination of different rhetorical devices. For example, Caplan’s use of anaphora (repetition of a words/phrase at the beginning of successive sentences) combined with the pronoun point of view, creates both emphasis (anaphora), engagement (pronoun POV) and thus a compelling argument: “We need editors who refuse to put fringe points of view on the air. We need scientists . . . We need the training of scholars . . . We need our courts.” In other words, this quotation makes the audience think that they need to take action and work together in order to guarantee a secure economic future.

Caplan use of ethos and logos also increases the effectiveness of his article. Ethos is the speaker’s ability to convince the audience that he/she is qualified to speak on a particular subject. This is often achieved through the use of effective logos (facts and figures). Caplan proves his credibility through his background as an professor of bioethics and director of the division of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Centre. Furthermore, Caplan uses facts and figures from many credible sources (The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), Pew Research Center, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) in order to strengthen his argument. This is exemplified when Caplan directly quotes Arne Duncan – the secretary of Education: “The U.S. performance on the 2012 PISA is ‘a picture of educational stagnation.’”

Another strong appeal that Caplan utilizes is pathos – the ability to play with the audience’s emotions.

This is achieved through the combination of rhetorical tools Caplan uses through out his article. For example, Caplan’s use of the pronouns POV plays with the audience’s emotions: “we are lagging behind other nations in terms of our children’s scientific literacy.” Caplan writes this in order to make the audience feel like they are losing, thus making them upset or angry. However, when Caplan uses the anaphoric device near the end of the article, it causes the audience to feel like they need to take action and work together in order to secure an economic future: “We need to start thinking outside of our school. We need editors . . . We need scientists . . .

etc.”

In conclusion, Caplan incorporates different rhetorical devices in order to make the targeting audience connect and strongly identify with his argument. Therefore, prompting a response from the audience that hopefully triggers change.