Analysis of John M. Barry's Rhetorical Strategies and Arguments

In his article about scientific research, John Barry employs many rhetorical strategies to characterize scientific research as an application that requires strength and passion.

Barry begins with a stark contrast between certainty and uncertainty. By stating these next to each other using the same syntactical structure like “Certainty creates strength” and “Uncertainty creates weakness”, Barry shows how scientists have a disadvantage as they cannot rely and operate with solid facts. But scientists can “embrace” uncertainty to fuel their effective method of investigation and make discoveries. This assertion is later supported by the allusion of Albert Einstein who explains how scientists “refuse to accept [their] own theory until [their] predictions were tested.” Scientists also do not want to believe in what they uncover but are courageous when they do so with “confidence and strength.” Scientists demonstrate the idea that even though uncertainty “makes one tentative” it is with “passion and patience” they can succeed while performing researches. Uncertainty is the key for a scientist. It all comes down to show that scientists require more courage and strength to accept uncertainty and to face the rejection of their predictions during scientific investigation.

Barry continues to supplement his essay by describing the environment that scientists work in to be dangerous and mysterious as the “wilderness”. He begins describing this “wilderness” by employing the imagery of the “Frontier” where “beliefs, may break apart upon the sharp edge” suggesting the insecurity and jeopardy of a scientist’s job of working with the “unknown.” Barry’s picture of the “Frontier” illustrates the idea that scientists are going through a heroic journey by moving into uncharted territory. The heroic journey allows readers to imagine about the kinds of obstacles faced and characteristics needed which effectively characterizes scientist ideologically as individuals who are courageous because of their resilience despite uncertainty. He creates a sense of significance and curiousness of going into the unknown as hugely desired by all scientists. Furthermore, the metaphor of going “off a cliff” suggests that there are chances where the scientist might be in a treacherous situation. Especially, when Barry describes work as “grunt,” he demonstrates the “tedious” decisions that scientists must make during their intricate research. This imagery in the “wilderness region” strengthens Barry’s claim by constructing the severity in scientific exploration to be adverse. Therefore, scientists must be prepared with their tools of strength and passion to face this adversity and to overcome the imminent uncertainty that is so common in science.

Barry also utilizes rhetorical questions by presenting situations to mimic the thought process of a scientist. Barry expresses the way a scientist thinks when examining a rock as an example to show how creativity and passion are needed. When he questions, “Would a pick be best, or would dynamite be better?”, he makes his readers to think about the best tool to use. Barry’s claim is successfully strengthened by this question as it displays how a scientist’s creativity is one of the hurdles encountered during research. Then, he examines the rock’s environment, “There is a stream passing over the rock,” as an example of collecting information in a scientist’s journey. These examples supplement Barry’s idea that scientific research is a field for the daring despite un-surety. But the obstacles presented during scientific investigation can be suppressed using strength, creativity, and passion.

Undoubtedly, Barry is no amateur writer. Not only does he employ these rhetorical strategies effectively to build coherent argument but also his adroit use guarantees readers will be convinced of his conviction that scientific research as an application that requires strength and passion.