Science affirms truth not by direct assertion but by negation. If someone were to ask a scientist, “How are you?” the response, in scientific terms, could not simply be “good.” A more fitting answer would be “not bad” or something equivalent. This distinction highlights a fundamental characteristic of the scientific method: it avoids direct affirmation in favor of ruling out alternatives. Science is not in the business of making unequivocal positive statements about reality but instead progresses by systematically eliminating what is not true.

This framework resembles the process of elimination in a multiple-choice test. For example, when scientists seek to answer a complex question such as “What causes cancer?” they rarely pinpoint a singular, definitive cause from the outset. Instead, they proceed by excluding possibilities—narrowing the field of potential answers by identifying what doesn’t cause cancer. Over time, these negations lead to an indirect approximation of truth.

In rhetorical terms, this mode of expression aligns with litotes, a figure of speech characterized by understatement. Litotes operates by asserting something indirectly, through the negation of its opposite. For instance, saying “not bad” rather than “good” captures a nuanced, precise meaning. Similarly, the scientific method uses this rhetorical approach to articulate findings, allowing for a careful and measured representation of truth that avoids overstatement.

The Rhetoric of Science

The rhetoric of science, a field dedicated to studying how scientists communicate and persuade, reveals that this litotic approach pervades the language of scientific inquiry. Scientists primarily communicate through their studies, and these studies often present findings in a litotic manner. Rather than offering unequivocal proof, scientific studies partially affirm hypotheses by negating competing explanations. In this way, scientific discourse functions less as a mechanism for declaring truths and more as a process of reducing uncertainty.

For example, scientific studies do not state definitively, “This is the cause,” but instead provide evidence that rejects—or fails to reject—the null hypothesis. This distinction underscores the probabilistic nature of scientific claims: science rarely deals in absolutes. Instead, it evaluates competing possibilities, gradually narrowing the scope of uncertainty by eliminating incorrect answers.

Science as Litotic Language

Contrary to popular perceptions of science as a taxonomic system that definitively names and categorizes truths, the language of science is fundamentally litotic. It constructs meaning by naming what something is not, rather than what it is. Each scientific study contributes a single datapoint that refines understanding by rejecting potential errors. Through this iterative process, science approaches truth indirectly, never declaring certainty but instead offering probabilities.

This litotic mode of expression reflects a broader reality: in science, certainty is a moving target, perpetually replaced by degrees of confidence. By articulating truths through negation, science not only mirrors the logic of litotes but also exemplifies its rhetorical precision. In doing so, it avoids the pitfalls of overstatement while offering a uniquely rigorous path to knowledge.