Methodological-Discursive Practices in Agronomy: knowledge or rethoric

Abstract

Backed by an analysis of the methodology and discourse of postgraduate dissertations and theses in agronomy, we show that the experimental research they countain fails, because it does not start from problems (questions) related to theories and scientific laws. Authors do not follow the rules and procedures that constitute experiments: the (controlled) manipulation of nature, hypothesis testing and the principle of "before and after". Their arguments display no force. Their writing does not encourage debate, but rather changes according to the circumstances. Each thesis begins and ends in isolation, unable to "have a dialogue" with others. From the point of view of logical discourse, theses are flimsy and inconsistent. And, perhaps, it might be no exxageration to state that these authors research partners, with whom they should be able to discuss the conclusions of their studies, do not seem to be other researchers, but the very nature itself that rhetoriacally justifies the unexpected in an a posteriori manner.