Scholars in the field of writing and rhetorical studies have long been interested in professional writing and the ways in which experts frame their research for disciplinary audiences. Three decades ago, rhetoricians incorporated stasis theory into their work as a way to explore the nature of argument and persuasion in scientific discourse. However, what is missing in these general arguments based on stasis are the particular arguments in science texts aimed at persuasion. Specifically, this article analyzes arguments from the stasis of value in introductions of science research articles. This work is grounded in the Classical topoi, or topics, cataloging types of arguments and identifying seven topoi. I analyzed 60 introductions from articles in three different science journals, totaling the number of value arguments and arguments comprising the topoi. Findings yielded different proportions in types of arguments, sharp disparities among the journals, and widespread use of value arguments. The broader issue at work in this article is how scientists make a case for the importance of their research and how these findings might inform writing and argumentation in the sciences.

长期以来，写作和修辞研究领域的学者一直对专业写作以及专家为学科受众进行研究的方式感兴趣。三十年前，修辞学家将停滞理论纳入他们的工作，以探索科学话语中论证和说服的本质。但是，这些基于停滞的一般论证所缺少的是针对说服力的科学文献中的特定论证。具体而言，本文分析了科学研究文章介绍中的价值停滞论点。这项工作以古典拓扑或主题为基础，对论点类型进行分类并确定七个拓扑。我分析了三种不同科学期刊文章的60篇介绍，值参数和构成拓扑的参数的总数。调查结果在论据类型，期刊之间的巨大差异以及价值论证的广泛使用方面产生了不同的比例。本文所涉及的更广泛的问题是科学家如何证明其研究的重要性以及这些发现如何为科学领域的写作和论证提供依据。