Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Standard

Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics : Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations. / Gruber, David R.

In: Rhetoric Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2016, p. 239-253.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Gruber, DR 2016, 'Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations', Rhetoric Review, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2016.1179004

APA

Gruber, D. R. (2016). Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations. Rhetoric Review, 35(3), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2016.1179004

Vancouver

Gruber DR. Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations. Rhetoric Review. 2016;35(3):239-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2016.1179004

Author

Gruber, David R. / Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics : Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations. In: Rhetoric Review. 2016 ; Vol. 35, No. 3. pp. 239-253.

Bibtex

@article{2359534782a64d86bd5d2807525d0536,
title = "Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics: Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations",
abstract = "Neuroscience findings employed in professional and academic fields can construct new avenues of inquiry, provide evidence for existing theories, or bolster less-recognized fields of study with exciting research from the brain sciences. However, the strategic, rhetorical alignments or disjunctions that enable those fields to incorporate or reject interpretations of neuroscience data have not yet undergone much discussion. This paper examines how phenomenologists construct the means to contest interpretations of mirror neurons coming from the cognitive neurosciences. The analysis ultimately expands neurorhetorics, demonstrating that rhetorical scholars need not privilege neuroscientific conceptions but can continually “re-invent” the brain, foregrounding multiple ontologies, pursuing alternative rhetorical alignments and performances.",
author = "Gruber, {David R}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1080/07350198.2016.1179004",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "239--253",
journal = "Rhetoric Review",
issn = "0735-0198",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reinventing the Brain, Revising Neurorhetorics

T2 - Phenomenological Networks Contesting Neurobiological Interpretations

AU - Gruber, David R

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Neuroscience findings employed in professional and academic fields can construct new avenues of inquiry, provide evidence for existing theories, or bolster less-recognized fields of study with exciting research from the brain sciences. However, the strategic, rhetorical alignments or disjunctions that enable those fields to incorporate or reject interpretations of neuroscience data have not yet undergone much discussion. This paper examines how phenomenologists construct the means to contest interpretations of mirror neurons coming from the cognitive neurosciences. The analysis ultimately expands neurorhetorics, demonstrating that rhetorical scholars need not privilege neuroscientific conceptions but can continually “re-invent” the brain, foregrounding multiple ontologies, pursuing alternative rhetorical alignments and performances.

AB - Neuroscience findings employed in professional and academic fields can construct new avenues of inquiry, provide evidence for existing theories, or bolster less-recognized fields of study with exciting research from the brain sciences. However, the strategic, rhetorical alignments or disjunctions that enable those fields to incorporate or reject interpretations of neuroscience data have not yet undergone much discussion. This paper examines how phenomenologists construct the means to contest interpretations of mirror neurons coming from the cognitive neurosciences. The analysis ultimately expands neurorhetorics, demonstrating that rhetorical scholars need not privilege neuroscientific conceptions but can continually “re-invent” the brain, foregrounding multiple ontologies, pursuing alternative rhetorical alignments and performances.

U2 - 10.1080/07350198.2016.1179004

DO - 10.1080/07350198.2016.1179004

M3 - Journal article

VL - 35

SP - 239

EP - 253

JO - Rhetoric Review

JF - Rhetoric Review

SN - 0735-0198

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 215412449