“…"science too powerful"; e.g., Bennett, 2008;Endres, 2009), others were apparently more melioristic (Evans et al, 2009), and still others seemed to suggest that science was already at least partially a subject of, rather than a powerful lord over, public discourse (Jordan, 2004(Jordan, , 2009Ratto, 2006). The oppositional stance of the "science bad" and "science too powerful" studies seems to be at odds with a third, relatively uncommon but apparently growing set of studies, the "Isocratean" studies that offered to improve scientific rhetorics (e.g., Ceccarelli, 2011;Jensen, 2007;Park, 2001;Spoel et al, 2009;Väliverronen and Hellsten, 2002). Instead of assuming that science was inherently or at least seriously flawed in its assumptions or conclusions, or that science was too powerful in the force it exerted in public, these essays assumed that scientists needed a little bit of help conveying their message to the public, and by implication that the world would be better with a little more scientific influence (at least of some kinds) rather than less.…”