After reading some of the blogs from the members of my class on the technical sphere I thought about how it could apply to my debate issue.
The current debate on the net neutrality issue is so confusing that few people really understand the issues at hand and what is at stake. Even when the issues are discussed it requires an explanation. I wonder if the arguments are focused in this technical manner in order to prevent more discussion from the public sphere. Goodnight (1982), has acknowledged that arguments can sometimes cross boundaries between spheres and that different spheres of arguments carry different expectations of what constitutes appropriate grounds and claims.
The movement of arguments in both directions from the public to technical sphere is typical of regulatory controversies and decisions about regulation, when contested, create "science-based controversy" (Brante, 1993, p. 181). This is controversy based not solely on competing knowledge claims, but on various factors that include public consequences of the controversy's resolution. Such a controversy blurs firm distinctions between the technical and public spheres of argument.
Brante,T., (1993). Reasons for studyingscienti cand science-based controversies.InT.Brante,S.Fullerand W. Lynch (eds), ControŠersial Science: From Content to Contention (Albany, NY: SUNY Press), pp. 177–191
