Knowledge representation, rhetoric, and scientific writing

Three concepts that are frequently treated separately but have a lot in common: Knowledge representation, rhetoric, and scientific writing. The connection goes along the following lines.

Despite wide claims of objectivity, scientific writing is a rhetorical exercise like any other human attempt to communicate in writing. For example, the way a researcher communicates her ideas will largely influence not only whether the information reaches the intended audience but also whether it will convince that audience or not. This is probably old news for those writing funding proposals -- it is definitely not only about "the science."

If one accepts the relation between scientific writing and rhetoric, the next step is to analyse persuasive scientific texts to determine which text structure is behind their success. Text structure implies two objects: elements and a relationship between them. For example, one could have a block of text in the Introduction section of a scientific manuscript focused on making a case for the existence of an information gap in the field, while another text block talks about the objective of the study. Both are elements, which could -- and probably should -- be combined by a relationship of called fulfils. In other words, if the text arguing in favor of an information gap successfully persuades the reader that such a gap exists, the relationship between the information gap and objective elements should be persuasive as long as the latter fulfils the gap made explicit by the former.

Point in case, knowledge representation is not only about making scientific text processable by computers, but it can also enhance persuasiveness through rhetorical structures.