When we think of science, we tend to think of objectivity. Data. Facts. Charts and graphs that speak for themselves. But in her article "Argument and Authority in the Visual Representations of Science" (2003), Anne R. Richards argues that this perception is more illusion than reality.

She unpacks how visuals—especially in scientific communication—are often presented as neutral truths when they’re actually shaped by layers of rhetoric, culture, and authority. And that matters, especially for designers, writers, and technical communicators who work at the intersection of information and interpretation.

The Illusion of Neutrality in Science and Design

Think about the dashboards we design, the reports we visualize, the onboarding flows we craft. All of these contain rhetorical choices, even if they’re subtle: what we prioritize, how we frame the problem, which numbers we show in bold, and which we tuck behind a “See More” link. These decisions affect how users understand and trust information; that is, they're not neutral.

Richards writes:

"Visual representations appearing in contemporary scientific journals…are usually based on inscriptions produced by apparatuses serving and immured in the culture of science, yet it is the rare viewer of these representations who reminds himself that what he sees “are not ‘natural objects’ independent of cultural processes and literary forms”. (p. 185)

In other words, we often forget that these images, no matter how precise, aren’t direct reflections of reality. They’re representations, framed by choices: what to include, what to highlight, what to leave out. Over time, those representations solidify into belief. The drawing of a T-Rex becomes the T-Rex.

Visuals as Arguments: Science, Rhetoric, and Representation

This isn't a call to question the integrity of science, but rather a reminder that scientific texts and visuals aren’t immune to rhetoric. They have authors. They make arguments. And they use design—intentional or not—to persuade.

The same applies when we create a funnel visualization in a product analytics tool, or display performance metrics on a dashboard. The interface becomes a kind of truth, but it’s still a constructed one.

One of the most fascinating examples Richards offers is the idea of “nature faking”; this is when photographs aren’t enough to support a point, so illustrators lean into more “persuasive” visuals. Think of those hyper-detailed, idealized wildlife drawings in textbooks. Or data tables that are placed on separate pages to project credibility, giving the impression of transparency, even if the data is too dense to interpret without help.

It’s not about deception, it’s about persuasion. It’s the same impulse that leads us to add human faces to charts or craft a “success story” from data that could be interpreted in multiple ways.

This isn’t inherently unethical. In fact, these rhetorical choices are often made to help readers understand complex ideas more clearly. But what Richards warns against is the invisibility of that rhetoric—when designers (and users) forget that choices are being made at all.

Toward a More Transparent UX Practice

When our work is seen as functionally invisible—when we’re expected to deliver “clean,” “unbiased” interfaces—we risk giving up accountability for the arguments our designs are actually making. And worse, we contribute to the myth that product experiences are neutral, when in reality they reflect decisions, tradeoffs, and assumptions made by teams of people.

We don’t need to slap disclaimers on every dashboard or data chart we design. But we can be more intentional about how we represent information and more transparent about the assumptions behind our choices. We can invite users to explore, rather than simply consume. We can make room for interpretation, rather than forcing a singular takeaway. And we can talk more openly, within our teams and organizations, about the rhetorical nature of UX design.

Because ultimately, good design happens when we own our role in shaping meaning. So let’s stop pretending our work is just the surface, and start acknowledging it as a powerful layer of communication, persuasion, and yes, even rhetoric.

Works Cited

Richards, A. R. (2003). Argument and Authority in the Visual Representations of Science. Technical Communication Quaterly, 183-206.