Abstract
The article examines the rhetorical strategies through which popular science books written by scientists participate in epistemic controversies. The analysis focuses on two books, Niles Eldredge’s Why We Do It and Nancy Etcoff’s Survival of the Prettiest, which address the debate about the evolution of human nature and sexuality. Although the books differ radically in their arguments, they appropriate similar textual strategies in order to negotiate epistemic authority. Both books engage in ‘boundary work’ by appropriating dichotomies such as science versus politics, true versus false Darwinism, and linguistic clarity versus inaccessibility. The article argues that it is this potential for large-scale boundary work that renders popular science books appealing rhetorical tools for those wishing to participate in cultural debates about science.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
