| Abstract: | This article looks at the commentary's role in scientific disputation by analyzing the rhetoric in two scientific papers. First, it considers each author's explanation as to why disagreement exists among scientists. Second, it investigates one author's accusation that “cultural norms” have foreclosed research avenues in evolutionary studies. Third, it examines each author's appeal to values. These values cohere with their explanations as to why disagreements exist and their particular recommendations for administrating the Endangered Species Act. |
