THe Rhetoric of planet formation
Although both sides of the debate are at odds, the field of astrophysics utilizes a very similar rhetoric in its argumentation. This is because the lack of real time observational evidence requires that any theory “involve careful, purposeful reasoning and explanation of motivations and intentions to colleagues within the scientific community” (Roundtree 2). This ultimately means that specific rhetoric is required for the clear communication of purposes behind a scientist’s computer simulation of their theory. In fact, “Rhetorical choice is so integral to simulation programming that a failure of rhetoric can cast doubt on the findings that the simulation produces” (Roundtree 2). A scientist has the ability to make a computer simulation illustrate their theory perfectly; but if they can’t justify the parameters they've put into the computer program, there is no reason their colleagues should consider that theory potentially valid. Their rhetoric is very esoteric in nature, which may perhaps confound the laity, however this internal rhetoric it is essential for scientists to clearly articulate their theory with others in their field because the “rhetorical figures underpin the ad hoc decisions made by computer simulationists” (Roundtree 6). The ability for a community of scientist to evaluate the precision of an experiment is necessary for its acceptance as a theory. The rhetoric they use is essentially the crux of their theory. In fact, “it appears that a simulation must not only be based on sound data, but also sound reasoning, argumentation and a convincing story” (Roundtree 7). If their data doesn’t allow for a good story, there is hardly a chance that their theory will be accepted.