With the large amount of research constantly being conducted, all documenting important aspects of multiple phenomena, what makes some scientific claims, and not others, stand out from a sea of possibilities to become staple pieces of knowledge? Utilizing the controversy surrounding the use of heritability studies in criminological research as a case study, this thesis analysed the rhetoric at play in two articles presenting competing arguments to (a) identify some of the discursive devices and strategies used in the production of scientific knowledge and ignorance, (b) illustrate that the production of scientific facts is first and foremost a social endeavour, (c) show that knowledge and ignorance are a part of a duality, (d) explain how the same established scientific information can be used in new claims to generate varied forms of scientific knowledge and ignorance, and (e) illustrate how the production of scientific knowledge and ignorance oftentimes involves appealing to audiences’ emotions. Four main ignorance producing strategies were documented, namely denial, dismissal, diversion, and displacement, each of which were used in a number of ways to increase the facticity of scientific claims over that of competing ones. Acknowledging its strengths as a unique mode of knowledge, this study also underlines the importance to get comfortable with the uncertainties and conflicts at the heart of science.