ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the rhetoric of neuroscience and the neuroscience of rhetoric should be intertwined. It highlights the complex methodological choices that go into neuroscience research studies and introduces a contentious debate concerning common analytical practices for functional magnetic resonance imaging. The chapter examines how neuroscience researchers define key concepts that may also be of interest to rhetorical scholars, such as emotion, reason, and empathy, considering whether those definitions square with traditional rhetorical concepts of pathos, logos, and identification. It considers how a single research article in neuroscience is framed rhetorically, including how decisions about terminology, research questions, and research subjects are rhetorical as well as empirical decisions. The chapter explores common tropes used in popular accounts of neuroscience research findings. It focuses on rhetorical scholars who would like to work with neuroscience findings and concludes by offering a set of suggested topics for future research that can constitute what calls neurorhetorics.
