"Why would you think so much about thinking?"

Looking back in my notes from this course, I am impressed with not only the variety of issues we discussed, but also the density of each. What is important though, is that Ben and Robin allowed us as students the ability to give those topics such density. The way we looked at each was guided, but not hindered or steered toward biases that belonged to Robin and Ben. I think this is just one of the ways the class was ran that gives it such a rich quality.

We, as the students, were not simply told to contemplate and study the critiques of other writers/critics, but instead were given actual texts and then given the tools (I think Bruno Latour really helped us in this way) to be critics ourselves. What was so great about the texts that we were studying is that they were written by a mixture of authors who executed each text in a different way. We were to draw our own conclusion about the texts instead of being told what to think about them.

This is why I was so interested in Bruno Latour's article, Why has Critique run out of Steam?


I wish we would have been able to spend more time on this article in class. Latour presents us with the idea of a thing vs. object. He is making the point that we too think of entities in this distinct way of either a thing/concern or as a object/meaning. The thing is the entity that the critic gives him/herself authority of and in turn creates an objectivity or meaning around it through his/her process of critique and it becomes the fetish of the audience/naive believers or the critic. It is possible for the audience to become completely fetishized within the entity because of the language of authority that the critic uses and so allows the critic to "always be right" (Latour, 239).

Latour wants this type of critique to be thrown away. He does not see it as being critique at all. I agree with latour because I see that there is so much time spent from people seeking what others/critics/media figures say and rely on in order to not only receive information, but most importantly to reinforce a blief they already have, to reinforce and confirm their own habitus (remember rhetoric according to Robin?). The was I see it is that the critic is deeply filled with rhetoric, which as we all know can have huge influences amongst an individual as well as entire groups of people.

When we were discussing this article, a couple students brought up that Latour tells us that critique much change, but not how it can be changed. We went on to discuss that he does actually let us know, but we still questioned the possibility of his visualization.

Latour wants us to move forward which entails us not looking at an entity seperately as a thing vs. object but looking at them as "things, mediating, assembling, gathering" (Latour, 248), or in other words ceasing the reduction of any given entity as a mere thing or an object.


Yes, as we all know Latour is complicated and makes your mind spin. To some he may be a little annoying in this regard especially because his solution seems almost impractical or impossible. Jacques most eloquently asked, "Why would you think so much about thinking?". A legitimate question, but I think we have been doing this all semester. From the beginning when we first read the article about Apotempnophilia and how a person's mind could be sane if they thought their body would be better off without a specific limb. What about Descartes and the mind/body split? Back to Fausto-Sterling and the idea of human beings wanting to be a sex or gender they were not necessarily born as, or perhaps were changed as in order to be viewed as normal. When we looked at A Billion Wicked Thoughts and how every male and female mind can be decoded through enough statistics and internet research. Pollan was thinking about the way people thought about the nutrition of their food or how they didn't think enough about the nutrition of their food. Michael Crichton of course gave us the different ways of thinking about global warming (being against it of course as being the right way to think about it)...and what did I miss? My point is that this all comes down to not only us thinking about what these authors are thinking about, but also us thinking about why we think the way we do. Where do we get our (what seem to be) natural thoughts? Does it all come from how we grew up (blank slates) or does it come from some place else?

I think Latour himself can answer Jacques' question in this article alone, that we must think about thinking because otherwise other people (critics) may think for us. AHHHH! I feel like in a way this class was built around Latour's article (perhaps not intentionally), and I think by Ben and Robin allowing us to have our own minds in this class, especially giving us the ability to communicate through blogging, really gave us the opportunity to not allow any of the authors we read to think for us. It challenged us to think for ourselves and better understand language and the overall influence and power it holds.

(Can you tell I love this class?)

Lectures of Science Studies

I found this gold mine today... 

How To Think About Science

Here are 24 lectures from people in the field of science studies. From Lewontin to Latour.

Just in case you haven't gotten you science studies fix yet!

(I just listened to the first one and was blown away. This will be my summer course...)

A New Arsenal

I am taking away a new fully equipped arsenal of weapons to participate in the Science Wars. Made by many professional Science War mercenaries and made by some who didn't even know they were apart of it. Weapons such as multidimensional history (Latour), circulating reference (Latour), hybrid diagrams (Fausto-Sterling), interdisciplinary research (Fausto-Sterling), the adaptationist spotter (Pinker, Lewontin, Ogodam), the rhetorical gun kit which includes: habitus ammo, group solidarity, the marketplace, self objects etc., seeing devices (Latour, Kuhn), reader-response theory (Hall, Critchon), sociotechnical (Latour), semantic contagion (Hacking, Elliot) etc... Although some I feel would (and do) see me as Don Quixote, I think this war does exist. Everything we looked was apart of it. Crichton is most exemplar.

I entered this class with a shaky foundation of reality. Previously I couldn't get past that science was inherently subjective. Now my focus has shifted. I understand I was situated in a Cartesian predicament and what that actually means, where it came from, etc. How I act and see the world is as real and concrete as I have ever felt it to be. When I'm sitting in my statistics or calculus lectures I can understand and spot the seeing devices that they are operating under. I can see but not still completely understand how they are talking about real things in our world.

There are many ideas and words of people that will echo in my head from this class. They have been extremely influential actors in forming my conscious in science studies. From Kryz's peer review, money and economics dialogues, to Jeehye's, Becca's, and Julian's work in the laboratory with genetics and chemistry and how they related what we were learning to their research, to Emily's knowledge and refutations of GMO's, transexuals, and global warming, to Valerie's and Nick's more practical points of view that question why does this matter (questions similar to ones that echo in my head from my parents), and Jaques philisophical undeniable hipsterdom of "come on, does this really matter", resistance and questioning. I left a few people out who's words resonate with me but I think you get the gist.

Thanks a billion to everyone, Ben, Robin and especially the Liquidators [the best group I have ever worked with and learned from in college]. I will miss this class immensely seeing as this is the kickoff for me into a lifelong study of science studies. Cheers!

Turn out the lights

It is hard for me to really focus on something specific that I learned. I was aware of many of the biases that come with science having grown up around people who struggled with those biases. I always tried to look up as much information about a source of information before making conclusions and this behavior has been heavily strengthened by this class. I feared that this class was making me more cynical and annoying nihilistic. Looking at how little people knew about where their information was coming from, about how it could be manipulated, and how little they often cared. What I did take away from this class is the benefit of this kind of struggle. You can't easily change certain strongly imbedded structures in our world, you can't easily change how people chose to ignore science, how large companies can use money to pressure those they oppose, how ideological backgrounds influence data selection and conclusion, but you can try. The process of questioning, understanding, and expanding on knowledge not only makes you better informed but it also changes those you interact with and in at least a miniscule way can change the base of knowledge that is being operated with.

In conclusion...

Upon reflecting on this class I came to realize that this class was my favorite this semester because it intellectually stimulating in the philosophical department. This led me to share a very brief overview of what we discussed in this class to one of my closest friends who I believe would've enjoyed it as much or even more than I have. One topic that sticks with me the most now is from the last debate we had for the last Latour article. This is unsurprising seeing that it is still fresh in my mind. So is 'science studies' dangerous to the public? I was the only one to side on the side of the affirmative then. The question therein lies: has my mind changed?

"Don't feed the Trolls:" One of the most difficult things to deal with in today's world of mass online communication are the trolls of the internet. I found looking at the concept of trolls within the scope of Latour, both Pandora's Hope and his article on critique. Latour seems to be on the side of getting the general public into the realm of science and scientific review. But I think when you throw trolls into the mix you suddenly get at the very least a less productive community of scientists, but at the worst, the trolls might sway some of general public which make technological advancement more difficult.

Politics and economics also play a huge role in my stance that remains that science studies is dangerous to the public. Our advancement in some areas of science also prompt us to question what exactly it means to be human, or plainly questions our morality. Science studies wish to apply these morals to science, either directly or indirectly. In both cases this can be dangerous because through politics and economic forces the scientific advancement in such area can be stunted. This shows why I think science studies is dangerous to the public, but responding to what Robin mentioned in class where he agreed, in part, with me, he brought up an interesting point. The absence of science studies would be equally to more dangerous to the public. This is an interesting, extreme, and an un-experienced topic: unbridled science. My thought on this is first we have to identify science studies and precisely when it became a thing. If it came into existence, and did not exist beforehand then Robin's notion would be in trouble because it can be seen that the public was not in danger then. If it really always existed then I think it would be safe to say that it is intertwined with the human condition and the lack of it would then be impossible. In the case of the latter my opinion would need altering... I would then say that as science studies becomes more prominent amongst the public it becomes more inconvenient for the scientists and in turn more dangerous to the public.

One Last Look at Latour

One thing from this class that I will take away with me was the final article by Latour. Perhaps the only bit from Latour that didn’t leave me more confused than before I read it, his article on critique really offered what I think is the most nuanced and realistic view on science, science studies, and society I have yet seen. I will admit, I wasn’t too fond of Monsieur Latour in the beginning of the year. Not only because of his verbose prose, or his maddeningly confusing glossary (each term’s definition contained references to at least 2-3 other terms!), but because I, like the scientist who confronts him in the beginning of the book, wasn’t entirely sure he believed in reality. However, after reading the last article I found that he actually made a lot of sense. This article not only helped me appreciate Latour’s perspective, but I feel it also offered many ideas which were relevant to this class. Being a biology major, I am probably quite predisposed towards defending science while ignoring other belief systems, yet after reading the last article I came to appreciate the many valid criticisms that can be raised against science. Science is not an entity distinct and separate from culture, nor does it offer us an untainted view of reality. While there is always the concern of bias and the misappropriation of scientific “facts” to promote our own “realities”, Latour also warns us that we must be equally aware of the opposite danger; that is, revisionism and its ability to distort science’s contributions. Critique certainly hasn’t, nor will it ever, lose its steam. Though we must sometimes turn critique on itself, and we must be careful to draw a line between critique and revisionism.

The Gender Binary

One issue that I found particularly interesting that was discussed often in class was the issue of transexuality, and whether or not it was actually an issue of science as opposed to an issue of cultural identity. The reason why this seemed to be such an interesting topic to me was because I found that there was no more of a connection between science and culture than in the context on transexuality. This issue was something that I have studied in previous classes, yet in these instances the discussions were within the context of pure cultural studies -- that is, there was no discussion of science involved. Taking the scientific advancements of gender reconstruction into consideration this topic became something much greater than merely how gender and sex played out within the eye of the public. It was an issue of biology, of cells and genes and hard science that tainted what was once a strictly gendered (not sexed) issue. After reading Anne Fausto Sterling's writings on gender and sex, I began to understand in greater depth the dissonance between gender and sex in society. I began to understand that because of the ubiquitous "male/female" binary more often people are looking to sex change in order to live outside of that binary. I further understood the harmful effects of this binary, because of its exclusionary nature towards those who did not feel as though their gender and their sex were compatible. Before the discussions we had, and before reading Anne Fausto Sterling, I was frankly unaware of how the male/female gender binary was such a hegemonic concept. Anne Fausto Sterling was the turning point for me, as she was ultimately the one who altered my view on the gender/sex debate. The fact that she made the call for a complete renovation of the gender binary was something that seemed so obvious to me after reading it. Science and culture both can be building blocks for doing away with the gender binary, and this is an essential point that I am taking away from this discussion as well as the class in general. In the case of transexuality science can radically alter the gender binary, and so can a society by redefining what it means to be "gendered".    Through sex changes science allows a person to not only feel comfortable with their biological sex, but how a culture will accept them. The relationship between science and culture in this instance lies in the fact that science can lay the foundation for new social constructs. Sex changes are only the beginning of what could result in a dramatic shift towards a comforting ambiguity, an all encompassing androgynous gender concept, where culture would be more inclined to accept any and all, simply because the male/female binary would be surely fading.

Liberal Identity and Limitations

When I was in high school I had an uppity kind of attitude because I considered myself to be a lone liberal amongst the ignorant Republican mob and my vegetarian, Obama promoting, human rights advocating person walked around with a "sure sense of self" (read: the kid who thought she knew everything). Since then I've come down from (been thrown off) that high horse and I realize that not only do I not know everything, I actually know very little. And of the little that I know, all of that information derives from a source that can't be purely "factual" (in a conceptual sense) because, as this class has taught me, facts don't really exist.
Our reality is based on theories that we take for grated as factual. I don't think this is a bad thing though- if we couldn't just take some things as facts, we would never be able to move forward and would always be stuck in a "what is real" land that's ultimately futile (I think). I really enjoyed our discussion about the question "do you believe in reality" and juxtaposing that with "facts" and "situations" that are IN our reality that simply seem... unreal. It's total chaos, but I think that that is our reality. I absolutely believe in reality but I think our reality is composed of a menagerie of complications:

For example, something that may seem simple: GMOs. The science behind it is somewhat complex, but generally undestandable. However, the result of GMOs is a total clusterf because the "facts" about GMOs are completely unreliable. They come from biased sources that only analyze the parts that they want to. 

The result of situations like this (see: every scientific issue in science studies and otherwise) is that we are never given the totality of a situation. This is a problem that is addressed in many cultural studies courses, I think, but never really solved. I think we ran into that problem in this course as well... that there truly is too much going on to be able to truly analyze what the "truth" of "reality" is. We covered a lot of theories though, and it was a breath of fresh air to be able to apply the theories to situations that actually exist (as I've found a lot of CSCL courses are totally up in the air, conceptual, whatever). When we boiled down the theories and applied them to people I think there was a resounding idea of people as groups... people as forming identities. Robin's article addressed this very well: people are comfortable and safe when they're in groups- not necessarily physically in groups, but when they can mentally or emotionally align themselves with other like-minded human beings, there's a happy result of security.

This brings me back to my first anecdote about who I was in high school. Being that person allowed me to group myself with other like-minded people who I looked up to and who I could look to for guidance in a scary world. My sense of identity provided me with security and, although I may not have realized it, a lens through which to look at the world. This lens is different for everyone and it's this universal lens (that exists for everyone, but for everyone in a different form) is what causes our reality(ies) to be so confusing and sometimes seemingly nonexistent. It's through taking this course that I have been able to really be aware of that, and try to shape it into being as least biased as possible.

It was a good class.

Overall, the class was interesting and discusses many topics that will stick with me for a while. As I stated before in my blogs, I am a science guy, who likes to include science in everything I discuss, read or write about. One thing that grabbed my attention in the many discussion and presentations we had in class was the topic of transgender. This topic was an eye opener for me. As I come from a culture that does not accept a man acting like a woman or vice verse, let alone accepting transgender.
One of the examples that came up during the presentation was a story about a woman who went through mastectomy, hormones and other drugs to become a man. I remember when this story was all over the news because he was the first "man to become pregnant". Now, I'm a science guy, and scientifically he did not become the first "man to become pregnant". As long as he had a uterus and a female genital area, then becoming pregnant was not a miracle or magical as a lot of the programs made it sound.
I cannot say that the class changed my view completely on transgender, but I also cannot say that I did not take or learn anything from this topic. After the presentation, I found myself agreeing with some of the points the students discussed. For example, insurance companies should not limit their medical needs because of who they are. They should be treated equally when it comes to medical treatment, jobs and life in general.
Finally, I believe that every person has the freedom to do whatever they want and be whoever they want as long as they are not affecting others. However, even after learning a lot from this class about transgender, I cannot claim that I completely accept the idea. My religious beliefs and my scientific knowledge are not separable, and both make it hard for me to fully accept the idea.

GMO's Aren't All That Bad-Final thoughts

One topic that particularly caught my attention and has since stuck with me after learning more through this class was GMO’s and everything that goes along with this topic. The reason that this topic has stuck in my mind more then any of the others is that fact that I learned all along I was wrong, I was judging GMO’s based on what I had heard from friends, family or just seen on television. What I knew about GMO’s before taking this class was next to nothing all I knew or thought I knew was the topic of GMO’s had a negative shadow riding over it.. Through the discussions, debates and poster projects I was able to see the good and the bad side of GMO’s presented in an unbiased fashion. This class did point out some of the pretty huge negatives regarding GMO’s that I had not been aware of before but it also introduced me to a monumental contribution GMO’s brings to the table, the usage of GMO’s for medicinal purposes.

            As I have stated before, my sister has had diabetes nearly her entire life. It is through the usage of GMO’s that they are able to create and extract the insulin that she uses on a daily basis to regulate her blood sugar. I think that this is important, that something that I has left a bad taste in my mouth for my whole life can be attributed to saving  the lives of people with Diabetes, including my sister.

This topic got me so interested into doing my research that I recently called my sisters boyfriend, a physician and asked him a couple questions regarding the topic. He went into so much detail that I had to cut him short, now I know all I need to know regarding GMO’s. Now when people start up a discussion regarding GMO’s I am able to talk about the pros and the cons while forming my own opinions instead of what the mob might think. 

Recognizing Limitations in Science

I will admit that I was hooked by the very first reading we were assigned.  I mean, who has heard of apotemnophilia?  It was a provocative first reading, and really worked for comparing what science was saying vs. the society.  This was big for me.  As a science major, I am incredibly biased towards scientific findings and haven’t really had the opportunity to look critically at how the scientific process could be misused, or in this case, the jump from pinpricks to a problem with the parietal lobe.  As I will be going to medical school next year, the complexities of the social/medical science interactions that we explored were especially intriguing and applicable to my future.  

After studying science for four years, it really is hard for me to admit to the limitations and problems that occur.  It is even harder for me to separate myself from my scientific training and the respect I have for the advances made in science, to step back and understand what is going on in the mind of someone that doesn’t have a scientific background.  I think that taking the time to critically analyze the science involved with apotemnophilia was enlightening and an incredibly important end to my undergraduate education, as well as comparing voluntary amputations to transgender surgeries, and especially looking at how I viewed the distinction.  It was a very interesting lesson in how I personally am influenced by the cultural mores despite that the surgeries could be considered very similar when separated from their social contexts. 

Medicine is one of the professions that has to (or it should, at least) take into account both scientific findings and the social/cultural conditions surrounding those findings; and being so, it is important to both myself and future patients to have an open mind about new findings and understand the limitations that are inherent in the scientific process.  Thanks to everyone in the class for being honest about your opinions regarding science and social issues, it has been an incredibly enlightening semester working with you.

Follow the dough

One topic that has been at the back of my mind since we discussed it is the idea of data mining and how researchers follow the money. When a company supports research, the researchers are expected to have a specific outcome, or at least something really close to that. Millions of dollars are given to research, but of course companies want results that will help or support their company to be successful. The money that they gain is then given to research again to make their company even more successful (circulating reference? haha, just kidding, but really). This is something that I never really recognized before, and, for the most part, I believed the "facts" that I heard. Statistics were always something I was intrigued by, and I felt that they gave me a benchmark or a sort of relevance to my own life. It was something I could compare to to see how normal I was (whatever that's supposed to mean..). I feel like after this class, every statistic or fact that I see I question the validity of it. I now kind of look at statistics or facts as an average or ballpark range of how it actually is. The way I look at it now, if I see a fact, I see it is as a less extreme view than it usually is presented in. I have realized that a lot of facts are mean to scare or fear people, so they are presented in an extreme way and the facts are usually conditional or stretched a bit. To be honest though, when I see facts now, I still look at it and say to myself, "wow, that's interesting", but I usually translate it into my own perspective in a more realistic way.  Unless I really care about the issue though, I'm not going to go out and research it further to see if the data is actually true. Hypocritical to write this blog on data mining then if I don't do anything about it? Meh, maybe, but at least I recognize it now, and to me, that's all that matters.

The class discussions we had on this issue made its way into every topic that we discussed (sex studies, agriculture, climate change) and I liked that. The fact that it came up so much made it important to me. This shows that data mining doesn't just happen in one field or by a specific group of people. It happens everywhere by everyone. Important? Definitely.

Circulating Reference and the Human Element

After reading the prompt and being told to reflect on ONE thing from the class I felt this was going to be harder than the entire class. There has been so much stuff that has interested me in many different ways throughout the semester, but perhaps the idea that jumps out the most is the concept of the “snowshoes in the snow”. I cannot remember who shared the story in the first 1/3 of our semester but it was the idea that a tribe of Indians lived in the forest and saw these weird tracks in the snow, and then someone told them that they were made from snowshoes. Thus those tracks were snowshoes then, have always been snowshoes, and always will be snowshoes.  This is also known as Circulating Reference, or I may have it wrong, like most applications/ usage of course terms by myself and my peers.

I think this concept has grabbed my interest and will stay with me for a long time because of its associated nature with history, discovery, and language. The idea that until a name was put on something it didn’t really “exist”, like Pasteur’s’ bacteria, illnesses, economic recessions, color, and certainly, snowshoes. This idea and concept embodies the artifacts of our lives and the history of our culture and science. It is so critically linked with our understanding of life and the very things we know within it. Once you have that moment of discovery, the moment you learn it was a snowshoe, everything changes.

One of my favorite videos from YouTube is a perfect way to summarize the things I have learned from this class. The connectedness of science, humanity, and culture, all in one. Together. Those are the lessons that will remain valuable, the lessons that continue to educate and shed light into the discovery. This video tells a cool story, and then you find out it was produced by the global chemical company Dow. Again, everything comes full circle. Enjoy.  

Final Thoughts...

The subject from this class that had the biggest impact on me was probably the discussions and studies on food studies and all the little bits and pieces that play into it, including agricultural policies, GMOs, factory farming and other controversies that we discussed. It came at a really good time because at the time of our GMO poster presentation, we were researching how to design a GMO in my biology class, and the various aspects and negative parts of genetically modified organisms that we had discussed in class really helped me to develop my report in biology.  That was the breaking point where I realized how important our discussions in cultural studies were, because they opened my mind to all these various points that my standard science classes would have simply ignored or only lightly touched on.  This is where I became interested in cultural studies, before this point, this class was just to fulfill my arts and humanities credit.  Before this point, I was all for hard science and all against personal interpretations and the politics that interfere and add complications to science.  If we hadn't discussed all the politics of food science and the negative aspects of GMO's, my understanding of the cons of GMOs would be limited to "we don't know what will happen in 40 years" and "potential allergies could arise from recombination of different genes in different food products."  GMOs really excite and interest me because I see all the positive potential that they have in curing a lot of ailments suffered in this world, but they also frustrate me because their figurehead is an evil corporation. Monsanto.  It helped me to understand all the negative aspects that keep the general public upset at genetic engineering and that sort of research.  This is a paradigm of attitude that I wish would be easy to change, but having such a negative front of genetic engineering does not help people change their outlook on the science of it. Genetic engineering of genetically modified organisms is controversial because there is little known about the effects that consumption of genetically modified food could have in the future, and a lot of people are unaware when they are consuming products with genetically modified organisms.  This directly demonstrates how ignorance is a root cause of fear and negative attitudes toward anything, not specific to just GMOs. In the future, I hope to apply this open mindset to all my science studies as I pursue my degree in neuroscience, so that I can understand all ethical and moral, as well as scientific and political, components of any controversial science study, because it engages my mind and stimulates my interest in the subject matter so much more and can help me to write more well rounded, comprehensive reports.  Being able to take multiple points into perspective will help me in other parts of my life too, not just in my science classes.  I have really learned that other people can strongly differ on their opinions of ANY subject manner, and they can defend it in a scientific way, even if it appears to be completely incorrect or ridiculous. Being respectful and mindful of others opinions will help me to be successful in the future because not only will it help me avoid offending anyone, it will just give me a broader understanding of others and the controversies that our society faces everyday with all the different political changes we have been undergoing in the past few years.  I am excited to see where this new mindset will take me because I think there is a lot to learn about a lot of different things.

Blog posting #10 (due SUNDAY 5/6, 11:59 P.M. (comment due MONDAY 5/7, 11:59 P.M.)): Final reflection/discussion

This last post is real open...and meant as a kind of final reflection/discussion. We'd like you to do the following:

1) Choose one thing from this class (a text, an issue, a concept, an object, a theme, a case study, etc.) that you are taking away with you from this class -- something that still excites you, or bothers you, or intrigues you. Ideally, something that has changed, even in some small way, the way that you see and act in the world. Examples? All our issues around WHY we should bother (or not) with critical studies of science--and how to do it right (or wrong).  What's it help us to know about Early Butz' shifts in agricultural support?  Or that there's beetle shells in red dye?  Or that we've forgotten about how many scientists really believed in spontaneous generation?

2) Describe it, briefly: what it is, and why it excites/bothers/intrigues you.

3) Reflect on what about it you are taking away from this class, and how it has (in whatever way) altered your thoughts about and actions in the world. If possible/appropriate, make reference to how the issue played out in class discussion, in the context of other topics/issues/themes/texts/concepts/cases we have been dealing with. And put some people in, if you can!  Think about our colleagues--who said what, who takes a particular kind of position, who gave you a different view of things, and see if you can get their voices and presence into what you bring us.

Latour and changing paradigms

The view that reality is only the construct of those who experience it. This notion has long been championed by our dear friend esteemed colleague Bruno Latour. In Monsieur Latour's recent article from Matters of Fact, Matters of Concern the constructs of how society deals with science is brought to the forefront with some concern. Latour himself admits he is concerned that the so called "critics of science" are ruining our chance of actually making scientific advances, which potentially could save lives.


"To indicate the direction of the argument, I want to show that while the
Enlightenment profited largely from the disposition of a very powerful descriptive tool, that of matters of fact, which were excellent for debunking
quite a lot of beliefs, powers, and illusions, it found itself totally disarmed
once matters of fact, in turn, were eaten up by the same debunking impetus.
After that, the lights of the Enlightenment were slowly turned off, and some
sort of darkness appears to have fallen on campuses. My question is thus:
Can we devise another powerful descriptive tool that deals this time with
matters of concern and whose import then will no longer be to debunk but
to protect and to care, as Donna Haraway would put it? Is it really possible
to transform the critical urge in the ethos of someone who adds reality to
matters of fact and not subtract reality? To put it another way, what’s the
difference between deconstruction and constructivism?" (Latour 232)

The rise of the intellect over the commoner's gullible-ness, seen in the Enlightenment, contributed to this reality full of facts or objects. Science thrived in this new age relative to the time the earth just exited. Enter Latour and his writings on reality. The concept of what reality actually was is now being questioned. Did cells exist before Hooke looked closely at that cork? Is science as objective, black, and white as we would like to think as science class teaches us? Or does society and the structures in it affect it to where it is now apart of the thing it is trying to analyze? Latour has helped the general public to all become critics of science. In a world where everyone is connected through nearly instantaneous transfer of information with Twitter and Facebook, and the rest of the Internet, a slight break of news can be took and twisted by anyone and distributed. Cue in endless conspiracy theories. When this is applied to scientific strides, sometimes the 'pseudo reviews come out of the wood work and munch the beautiful breakthrough down like a bunch of termites, meanwhile the actual, qualified critics do not have a chance to review it themselves before it is mutated beyond repair. This is what needs to be seen, that the general public can play the role of the deconstructionist termite, munching up and mutating the figure to be indistinguishable before the constructivists can get to it. Latour is now conflicted, he wants the general public to act as their own critics, but where does one draw the line and declare a naturalized fact?

So Latour not-too-long-ago just gave us these seeing devices to perceive reality in a different way which urges us to look at not only what is in front of us but what is in fact real. If looking solely at Latour and this philosophy (I'm sure he would disagree that we are doing this however), and look at recent events and conspiracy theories. There is a portion of the world's population that thinks the Holocaust never happened. These people Latour admits are taking his philosophy in forming this theory. Concerned he must rethink. What is correct? Do we allow theories to operate even though there is substantial evidence to the contrary? Or for the sake of progression must laboriously examine every half-witted theory that crosses our view, and in doing so we must completely discount any naturalized facts that directly prove to the contrary? In effect with the later I think we would be going backwards 99.999998% of the time. Latour seems to agree which is why now he wants the naturalized facts back, and a closer examination of everything as opposed to stepping back to observe the universe and its workings. A closing thought on my part: I no more enlightened by reading this article, in fact I could say I am more confused. It seems there are concurrent philosophies at work here, both cannot exist in the same time, both have flaws but one must be perfect and true. A paradox is at work here in my mind.

"The Fairy Position"

While reading Latour's article, I remembered this video that I stumbled across sometime last week. While it also fits into our discussion about rhetoric and the way it works from Robin's article, this also fits into the reading for this week.

Latour presents us with the idea of two positions (I will only be focusing on the fairy position) that objects have in the social sciences (Latour, 237). The position that objects have been given is unsatisfying for Latour, he sees it as being completely "useless" because it makes it "impossible" to consider it with any "objectivity" (Latour, 237).

Latour states that when the fairy position is used, "the role of the critic is then to show that what the naive believers are doing with objects is simply a projection of their wishes onto a material entity that does nothing at all by itself. Here they have diverted to their petty use of the prophetic fulmination against idols "they have mouths and speak not, they have ears and hear not," but they use this prophecy to decry the very objects of belief- gods, fashion, poetry, sport, desire, you name it- to which naive believers cling with so much intensity" (237-8).

I wanted to use this video as an example because I think it depicts many of the topics that we covered in class, specifically economics, food, and global warming. Most importantly it is desperately trying to convince people that everything that we've heard about global warming and change of economics within the U.S. is false and that ideas of change are only made in order to disrupt and destroy the lives we live. His main line is, "If I wanted America to fail..." He then continues on to make statements in order to support his claim. This is where Latour comes in.

The statements that he makes are, to paraphrase, like, "the energy we already have is 'cheap' and 'abundant'. This is big within itself because they are simple and vague adjectives. They don't state any scientific understanding of how he is able to make these claims, but instead he states them as being fact. He has turned the thing/concern of energy into an object (as being objective).

Here, energy is the material entity, which of course" does nothing by itself" unless we as people give it some sort of meaning, give it some sort of objectivity whether it be to conserve energy, or to think that it is forever usable and disposable. And those who listen to this man/Freemarket.com begin to fetishize over the idea that people of power have come up with the idea of global warming in order to ruin America and destroy Americans (whoever that term actually refers to). By speaking with such matter of fact language, it is difficult to separate it from what it actually is, which is a matter of concern.

This spokesperson for Freemarket.com is acting as a critic for this company, and creates a following because as a critic, as Latour states, "you are always right!...You (the critic) can turn all of those attachments (which belong to the naive believers) into so many fetishes and humiliate all the believers by showing that it is nothing but their own projection, that you, yes you alone, can see...their behavior is entirely determined by the action of powerful causalities coming from objective reality they don't see, but that you, yes you the never sleeping critic, alone can see (239). What Latour is saying here, is that the critic has authority while critiquing, and so the "naive believer" looks to the critic and seeks out factual information from the critic, because he/she is the one who is supposed to know, he/she is the one that states that they know and also uses objectivity in order to state that they know.

Latour does a nice job in bringing up that any type of critic uses his ability to critique for his advantage, in order to debunk another type of critique. This means that anyone must look at the type of critique you are reading and understand that there is discourse within it. We must get away from this type of critique and create a new type. One that will "generate more ideas than we have received, inheriting from a prestigious critical tradition but not letting it die away" (248). That we must look at things as what they are, that is as things and not objects and then we can have a better understanding and a reason to believe the critics that are active in the critique.

THE EDGE

THE EDGE


I don't know why I haven't posted or talked about this earlier. But for any those of you who dig and like exploring on your free time the science wars, science studies, and just simply "cutting-edge" science. Here's a good place. They deem themselves apart of the Third Culture. Claiming that they have made their bootcamp right in the middle of Washington bridge. (Even though they are mostly science-y related) They really like Pinker (he isn't that bad of a guy, sometimes). But they also like Dennet. Among many other scientists and intellectuals. Many I've never heard of. But I've followed this community for years. Pretty key for any science nerd. I would say. This community is actually the first that inspired my study of and in science.
John Brockman, the founder, has had some interesting publications himself. The EDGE itself, has published some pretty influential material. CHECK IT OUT.

Reduction and Discourse

"What we lose in matter through the successive reductions of the soil, we regain a hundredfold in the branching off to other forms that such reductions -- written, calculated, archival -- make possible." (p.55)

Circulating reference has been something that has often been discussed in class, and I am aware that this concept might be a little worn out. However, I feel that this passage from Latour explains a lot when trying to understand the connection science has to discourse in the cultural sphere. To put it in "mom" terms science engages in reductions of everything studied -- everything is broken down into minute parts in order to understand each part's function in order to understand how the whole operates. What results is discourse in language that defines what is being studied. In short, to reduce things in scientific research is to gain in discourse.

When I was researching the scientific aspects of how grass fed beef stacks up against corn fed beef I came to realize that it was the reduction of the study to genes and biological evidence that garnered our discourse on what type of feeding was better for humans and cows alike. I read many articles that described biological functions of the cow's stomach when eating corn or grass, and how the cow's digestive system played a pivotal role in deciding whether corn or grass was healthier for the cow. In these articles it seemed as though it started with what is produced when the cow is eating corn or grass, and instead of immediate conclusions being drawn from the products of corn and grass fed cows, studies began the process of reduction from the point of production. Internally, what happens when the cow eats grass versus corn? Before the slaughter of the cow, what biological processes occur that produce the difference in the quality of meat between corn fed and grass fed? These are questions that were tackled in most articles I read, and these types of questions led to the reduction of the cow itself to minute scientific parts -- the study of processes in the stomach, of processes in the intestines, of processes that result in disease or failure of health in the cow, etc.

From these reductions public, political discourse was born. Because the scientific reductions were made I was able to read conclusions on what meat was actually better for humans, and what feed was better for the cows. More so, because those reductions were made many websites and interest groups were able to shape their discourse concerning the matter, and that discourse leads to conclusions concerning aspects of culture that are beyond scientific biological processes. Reductions to biological processes allowed for journalistic discourse on the effects of grass fed/corn fed beef in economic language, language concerning commodification of the meat, and has helped shaped public conscious concerning whether or not grass fed beef is ultimately a better and healthier meat for humans that corn fed beef. This is how I have come to understand Latour's passage above -- In dealing with the gap between empirical data and public discourse, the reduction of the matter of study to scientific, biological data produces meaning in discourse that can reach into many aspects of culture beyond scientific study.

Luntz the Dunce

"And yet entire Ph.D. programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always prisoners of language, that we always speak from a particular standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives."
It seems to me that one of Latour's main points is that people misappropriate this idea of the impurity of science to undermine scientific arguments. Being a biology major I often concern myself with debates about evolution. I am immensely exasperated every time I hear the creationist say that evolution is "only a theory". Ignoring the fact that a scientist's use of the word theory is entirely different from how the layman might use theory in everyday terms, it almost amounts to saying "well since you cant be certain of your idea, any idea I come up with is equally valid." While its true that scientists are constrained by the language they employ and their views aren't inherently free of bias, that doesn't serve as pretext for touting any idea you have as if it is equally valid. In my mind, this issue is not much different from Luntz playing off scientists' lack of "complete evidence". Simply, the problem is that people hold science to unreachable standards. Every time scientists find a transitional form creationists will point out that there are two new gaps between that transitional form and the species which we claim it links. Similarly, Luntz asserts that scientists don't have "complete evidence". Well, I don't think any scientist in the world would claim to have complete evidence, or even that such a thing as complete evidence is actually attainable!

Allow me to retort

For what I would like to talk about I will use a quote form the very end of Latour's article, which is a nice copout because it is generally where condensed ideas can be found.

"We all know subcritical minds, that’s for sure! What would critique do if it could be associated with more, not with less, with multiplication, not subtraction."248

So how would I expand on this idea? The best way to explain this idea is by an actual effort to critique it. What Latour's whole article deals with is this critique that contextualizes, connects, expands on and creates ideas. There is a big difference between acknowledging and examining biases that come out of the  culture our science is done in and questioning the moon landing or investigation around 9/11. One pill lets you glimpse how our process of creating ideas can actually impact those ideas (scientists having to appease their funders) while the other pill lets you close your mind and to global warming because its all just a giant anti american, anti business, ivory towered leftist conspiracy that keeps lazy scientists funded in our hard earned tax stollen grant dollars. There is quite a big line in my opinion between seeking to examine the information that led to an establishment of facts and rejecting them because you simply wish to reject them and can find some small amounts of doubt or really manufacture doubt by misrepresenting complex ideas. The kind of critique Latour argues for seems quite analogous to a peer review process where you have your methods, disclosures, conclusions examined are are given feedback on these topics as well as your general finished product. I really found the imagery of the space shuttle explosion vs the hearings on Iraq to be quite useful in examining the difference. In one setting Latour talks about how the destruction of an object that is in fact a great symbol of our scientific work will be examined based upon the evidence that is breaks up in to. In the other Latour mentions a discussion that had at the best two possible conclusions, really only one strong one and in which the object of the game was to use enough "evidence", political will, public opinion to create a reality in which the UN would be for the invasion. The key difference between the situation was that in one evidence would be examined to see if a conclusion could be reached, in the other evidence was used to fit a pre conceived conclusion. I think that is a good way of defining the differences between the type of critique Latour would like and the type he fears he might have contributed to.

In terms of applying this to a real life situation, I would like to bring it back to the topic of golden rice and how it is perceived. It is quite easy to say that one side is anti kids and evil for supporting a gmo product that would further fatten the pockets of evil corporations and destroy local cultures. It is even easier to say that someone is evil for not wanting to allow for the use of a miracle crop that could be said to be sent down from the skies above by our grand lord through the labs of a great American company. Applying a more critical view of this situation could lead one to see a validity in both of my heavily exaggerated and caricature like arguments. On one hand we do have a good scientific way of dealing with the problem, but on the other hand ( the hand that takes a more Latourian examination of this science) we have to recognize that this solution comes from the same structure as the problem. Golden rice is a product of the group that contributed to the loss of nutritional food in India, and using it while it might help would only be a bandaid. I know that this explanation is rather biased in my own view but I am using it in a more illustrative point, so I will continue. Once we have the idea that while useful, golden rice through its scientific creation is linked more to the problem that to a viable solution we can extend these ideas further to look at other aspects of our culture and the problems and benefits that arise in globalization. I could go on and on (as many of you know by having to listen to me in class, I literally could go on and on) but I think that this serves enough of an example of a more in depth  critique that Latour would call for.

Socially explained science

“We would recoil in horror at the mere suggestion of having them socially explained, whether we deal in poetry or robots, stem cells, blacks holes, or impressionism, whether we are patriots, revolutionaries, or lawyers, whether we pray to God or put our hope in neuroscience. This is why, in my opinion, those of us who tried to portray sciences as matters of concern so often failed to convince; readers have confused the treatment we give of the former matters of fact with the terrible fate of objects processed through the hands of sociology, cultural studies, and so on” (17).

This quote caught my eye because it is applicable to all of what we have talked about in class.  In “layman’s terms,” we all have things which we believe to be true.  And it is natural that we don’t want those beliefs to be analyzed and written off as just having a social cause. Well, duh. Latour, in this quote, is arguing that people do not want their beliefs to be questioned and given a social origin because they have seen other beliefs questioned by sociology and cultural studies, and think that their own beliefs will be undermined like previous ones have been.  A prime example of this was the idea of Eugenics: once it was given a social rather than scientific cause, the idea was labeled as a made up to legitimize the then current social ideology.  No one wants to consider the fact that their beliefs could end up the same way.

Because all of the issues raised in class have been controversial and have several sides, they are really all applicable to the concept that Latour is exploring.  Each one of us came into the class with beliefs about the topics we covered, and it’s uncomfortable to admit we all could be wrong.  The gender discussions we had in class were a great example of the struggle between biology/science and social causes.  I found it incredibly interesting to read Ann Fausto-Sterlling and hear about how the medical field addresses ambiguous genitalia. Their science told them that there were two sexes so they “fixed” those that didn’t fit the social norm.  The question is: to what extent is that science-based or social-based?  And there is no question that most people are somewhat threatened by the fact that their belief surrounding the concept of gender is being critically examined.  Who knows, in the future years, the idea of the male/female binary could be an antiquated “social” belief and unsupported by science.  What does that say about all of our other beliefs?