- Some brief sketching about climate change sciences and the response(-ability) of scientists and the public:
- Science used to be practiced through measurement: controlling something, testing a hypothesis against a reaction, etc.
- Science today is practiced through modeling; simulating scenarios/representations of a reality that has never existed … (assuming a certain/common disposition about “reality”)
- Concerning how materiality (we/Herndl’s Rhetoric and Cultural Studies course have/has been reading Coole & Frost’s New Materialisms) informs potential ways in which we ought to respond to “new” Science – sciences – is it appropriate to suggest that we’re thinking about the projects in the wrong ways? That Science (of the past) – as well as the ways in which we’re practicing the sciences now – is wanting a new rhetoric
- Essentially, I’m suggesting that just as Science has changed into the modeling of representations of reality (the sciences) so, too, has the response-ability of both parties; scientists and the public
- We’ve been problematizing climate change sciences (as an example of an unknown fear … see Frost in New Materialisms) and the ways in which climate change is rhetorically framed … my (very brief) response-ability here? To suggest that “climate change” is no longer an effective rhetorical communication of these sciences, but rather that our response-ability ought to be rhetorically articulated in terms of resiliency …