Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Reshmi Nair 600 Word Count

This is a language analysis I did with the cross examination of Dr. Ruse, using articles that related to power play in a legal setting and critical discourse analysis. Q: Is it fair, then, to say that a science has to generate new facts which then can be tested against a theory? A: Well, it's not generating the facts, but its generating inferences about expected facts. Do you want an example or two? In this instance the dialog sounds similar to the Haworths article, where she discusses the Shipman case, when Michael Ruse answers the question with another question of his own. In Haworths article, she mentions that interviewees have control over what information they give and that is the most important part of the interaction. The whole process is to gain information from the interviewee and so it is the interviewee that has the control. Here, we see the man has the information and is asking the question to the interviewer, Do you want an example or two? and therefore showing that he has control. Van Dijk in his article explains about the various kinds of power people execute and in this dialog we see that when Ruse answers the question and then asks if the interrogator wants an example, he is exerting his power. Q: Do I understand you to be drawing a distinction between the happening of evolution and the mechanics of evolution? A: Yes. Q: And what is that distinction? A: Well, the happening of evolution is claims about the fact or the supposition that we all today, and the fossil record is a function of the fact that we all evolved, developed slowly over a long time from, to use Darwin's own phrase, one or a few forms. The mechanism, the cause of evolution is -- what shall I say -- it's, I won't say why, but it's the 'how did it happen' sort of question.

Here, we see he is not so straight forward and explaining more than what is being asked. He was asked if there is a distinction and just answers to that question and does not explain the distinction until asked. This again shows that he is in control and is only giving the information that he believes is required. Q Now, as a philosopher of science, do you believe that observability is an attribute of science? A: It's funny you say that. Certainly empirical evidence is important, but I wouldn't want to say that direct empirical evidence is important for every aspect of every science. We don't see electrons, for example. Here, the man starts a response with Its funny, when he is responding in a courtroom while being questioned by a lawyer in front of a judge. When he starts with such a phrase, he is giving the idea that he has the authority and not the lawyer. Using such a phrase, he undermines their position and also disrespects the court by responding as though he is having an everyday conversation with his friend.