scientific expectations

The largest role that science has played in my life is in expectation. My mother is a veterinarian and science is all she knows. Family dinners at my house growing up always  included graphic, disgusting tales from the surgery that happened that day and more recently, pictures to go with it on her camera phone. Going through high school and starting college I had an unwritten, unspoken predetermined expectation from my family; to study something with science. I started out as a pre-med major at the University of Minnesota – Duluth and quickly found out that medicine was not my calling. I love hearing and learning about the disorders and abnormalities that come out of hospital work, but the nitty-gritty basics were horrible to learn and didn’t sink in one bit. So I decided to expand on my true interests, not my mothers, and became a communication disorders and sciences major, my own decision and path.

         I think my story plays off of the “Blank Slate” idea because I had decided to be a doctor because that’s what I had grown up hearing. I had been told that medicine was where the money was at and the idea of a successful job in science had been pounded into my head since I was four years old. I appreciated my mother’s advice and her support as I went against it, but I do still love learning about some aspects of science. 

The rough road to science

I started loving science when I was nine years old. It started when I was helping my father plant in our garden. I collected leaves from different trees and took them to my room to compare their shapes, colors and textures. In fifth and sixth grade I spent most of my free time in the library reading children's science and adventure books. The most exciting moment in my childhood was when in the ninth grade. I entered the city's science fair contest. I invented a live model elevator with electricity and a small motor. Winning the contest made me feel like a genius. From that day I knew that I wanted to have a career in science.
When I got my High school diploma I applied to many colleges. I was happy that I got into my top choice college. I chose to major in biotechnology and genetics. During my four years at the university I worked in researches, experiments and had a couple of internships. The research that I was very interested in was an HIV research during my senior year. It allowed me to apply most of the advance molecular biology techniques I learned during the first three years of college in this research. I worked with the immunological professors in different researches too.
I wanted to expand my education and advance in my learning and career. I decided to come to the United States since it is known to have so many advance technological and scientific inventions. What I did not know is that foreign degrees are not very welcomed in the science companies and even universities. After trying many different options and applying to different researches, I decided to go to the University of Minnesota to get a another bachelor degree in order to reach my initial goals. Getting a second bachelor degree is not what I planned to do and is not what I really want to do right now, but I guess it is what it is and i have to do it in order to advance later in the science field.

Classification

Ever since I was young I had a passion for math.  I still remember when i was 6, I woke up at 7am in the morning before school and made flash cards for multiplication. Just for fun. To me, math and science were the best part of school.  To foster this talent, love, whatever it was, I attended a technology focused K-12 school that only had 500 students.  There were less than 50 in my grade. This meant, from 4th grade until the time I graduated I was with (more or less) the same group of people. At this school we were forced to wear uniforms consisting of khaki pants and polo shirts.  In elementary school I was classified as a tomboy.  I loved dinosaurs, running around outside, and most of all, Pokemon.  Things I didn't like consisted of stuff like brushing my hair and wearing earrings. However, I secretly played with my Barbies until I was 15.  It just goes to show that the world is never so simply black and white, or tomboy and girly girl for that matter.  A few weeks after starting out at this new school I ended up joining Lego League to build robots.   So my reputation at my school was set for the next 8 years of my life. Nerdy, loves math and science, and a tomboy.  Once I entered college, I enrolled in a literature class.  In this class I made a friend.  Her major was global studies, and mine was still undecided.  Flash forward to last week.  I saw her again, the first time I have seen her since the class and we make small talk. She asks if I have decided on a major yet.  When I reply "biochemistry" she looks at me shocked.  She replies, "You don't look like a science-y person at all, I would have assumed that you pick a more arts-y type major."  And so I have been reclassified.  Neither classification explains the real me, but just confines me to a broad definition that does not allow for my individuality.  

Science or humanities: dilemma of the century

Throughout my entire childhood, teenage, and high school years I was a total science and math nerd. I took all the AP science classes I could and went out of my way to take some independent study classes with some of my high school teachers. When I was applying to schools, I was set on being a nutrition major, just like my sister and when we did a report in high school on what we wanted to do after college, I did mine on being a dietitian.. I started out my freshman year as a nutrition major and realized it wasn't my calling. Looking back, I never wanted to be a nutrition major. I think to myself, "what the hell was I thinking", because that is the complete opposite I am doing now, as a communications major. I think I got burnt out of science, but I also think that I was exposed to a whole "world" of other classes to take, as I went to a small high school with limited opportunities for electives. Instead of just following my older sister's footsteps, I took some of the intro classes for the comm major and loved it. 


With both my parents working more or less in the science world (both agriculture based) and my sister in the science world, I think that part of my love for science was based on how I was raised, because that was what was in everyone's interest. I was in no way sheltered as a child, but once I got to college the opportunities for me because drastically more. Science still holds a special place in my heart, and more often than it should do I second guess myself in thinking I should have stayed in the science world, not necessarily nutrition, and gave it more of a chance after high school. One reason I really enjoy this class is because I love both the sciences and the humanities and have had a passion for both at some point in my life. It is hard for me to pick a side, whether it is Pinker, Latour, or Lewontin because I have often held beliefs from both perspectives, but it is interesting to see different beliefs compared side by side.    

There is no marble in the lobby

I was at a hospital in the cities with a friend. This friend of mine was worried that they might have cancer and we were at the hospital to get some tests done. I come from a medical family, one where the doctors do research, publish and compete by looking at isi impact factors of journals. I had looked up the doctor that my friend had seen and was unhappy to see what I had been taught to be a horrible phrase " board eligible" I was also not too happy to see a lack of publications in the area of oncology which I found strange because there should at least have been some dating back to the doctors days as a fellow. I brought all of these concerns to my friend but was told that I had a very elitist, cut and dry, dehumanizing view and that I should recognize that this doctor had been recommended, was qualified that there was no reason to distrust him.

Our whole discusion can seem a bit mean here and a tad off topic but I absolutely love debating and arguing so I enjoyed exploring our own little science war which as the Port disappeared turned to a debate about political views and about the economics of healthcare. Pretty much everything we discussed the night before the test came up in some way in our class.

Now after being seen by a doctor and having a biopsy done my friend was happy to find them self cancer free. Everyone was extremely happy, but I was still paranoid. I convinced my friend to have their biopsy done at another hospital repeated at a hospital of my choice since the insurance would cover it they relented. It turned out that the hospital in the cities had made a mistake, I dont think it was the fault of the oncologist as much as of the pathology lab but my friend was not cancer free. Or I suppose I should say they found that the tumor which had been declared safe was actually not and would require a regiment of chemo and some surgery. 

I dont want this to be some attempt at gloating or some attempt at convincing people to my point of view towards science. I think that this type of situation perfectly showed the many issues that we talk about in class. We had the aspect of authority and where and how it should be placed that Lewontin touched on, there was a good example of reality depending on how tests are done and interpreted that was shown by Latour in his discusion of reality. My own view point and reasons for insisting that we get a second opinion are so rooted in my cultural experiences that had I not been so formed by my surroundings I would not have argued for going to what is by numbers one of the best institutions when it comes to cancer treatment. 

Luckily my friend was able to go through the necessary treatment with minimal problems, but I was struck by my own bias once again when celebrating their return to health. They said that it was a good idea that to get a second opinion and I replied with "well what do you expect XXX does not have marble in their lobby and I can't even tell where they keep their Rodin".  I really hope that my rather a-hole statement though meant as a joke was still only brought on by a copious amount of the celebratory blue label.  This once again brought my thoughts back to my very reductionist cut and dry view of science, but how the view is afforded to me by my slightly more than average understanding of medical culture and the many socioeconomic factors that go in to constructing medical centers that attract staff and researchers from around the world. (including my own family)  I really can not reconcile if it is because of my overall trust in science that I can dismiss so many of the biases that go in to constructing them, or because I can quickly see most of the biases that go in to our scientific work.


* please note that since my friend was a student here at the university I chose to write with as little detail as possible so as not to give away their identity in sharing this story- I know it might make it harder and more awkward to read

Are we made of Blank Slates?

I'm having a very difficult time coming up with a time that science has shaped my life. Science to me has just always been there. It was there through my 13 years in a private Catholic school in a small town and it remains with me at least. Contrary to popular belief the childhood I spent in the Catholic school did not alter my view of the world from a science rooted in facts to a religious belief based on faith. I suppose it could be construed that they tried to but my impressions could have been wrong, they often are. Sorry Robin the faculty at my school only had one nun, and one future nun for a short while when i was in sixth grade, but that is another whole story.

My family too was not altogether either scientific or religious, sure we went to Mass every weekend, or more likely as we felt we needed to go, which became every-other weekend. And yes my parents put a strain on grades but never straying either to the sciences or the arts. My personal explanation about how I grew connected in the force, I mean science (whoops to much Star Wars), stems from me plainly taking an interest on my own accord. For those of you wondering I didn't start becoming a BIG nerd until I got here and found some wonderful people. Of course it didn't help my interest when I would be repeatedly asking 'how' or 'why' do things work the way they do. Even if my parent did answer that one question more would stem from it. This is much of the nature of science.

What I am alluding to here is my opinion of blank slate solely as it applies to me. If the theory of the blank slate were true how did I come to be the person I am today? I am an individual that loves video games, science, computers, not religious in the least bit, and I have a bit of laziness in me. None of these factors were stressed in any point in my life and in the case of religion it was the opposite. But on the other hand I believe that my lack of a social life outside of school when I was younger (and if some psycho-analyst out there is going to give a completely different answer if they somehow come across this blog) led to me being impressionable now. With my random roommates my freshman year I picked up a few mannerisms and phrases. And now with my current group of friends I seem to be picking a few things up as well, we all do to some extent. This all leads me to be questionable about the blank slate theory.

My Knowledge as a Result of Science

       As a senior in college contemplating the future beyond the classroom I have looked back on multiple occasions to find that there was thing that has shaped my perception of the world and created my scheme of knowledge more than anything else -- religion. That doesn't sound very pertinent to our discussion, but it is in the sense that religion has given me something to question. As an atheist I have taken the position that there is some logical explanation to existence, and I have always counted on science to fuel my credibility as a non-believer. However, without religion I would not be as invested and tangled with science.
       I could generalize this as a need for evidence, and a need for reason. My specific desire for science to provide the evidence of the lack of a god started around my junior year in high school. I had long been absent from any church services or gatherings at this point, and my connections with a god had been all but severed. I began to look for reasons to feel this way, and my motivation at this point was purely based on spiting religion. I began to form my perception of the world based on purely logical calculations and explanations, and it was because a virgin birth simply did not suffice as the means by which my being generally came into existence. Religion gave me a spring board into science, it gave me a reason to become involved with science.
        I use this example because the religion I know and have come to dislike was taught to me in the institution of Knox's Presbyterian Church. On a personal level, this was the bond between politics and science that is pertinent to our discussion. The discourse that I gathered from that church seemed illogical, it seemed eerily similar to stories of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. My role in the political world -- by a role in the political world I am implying a relationship with the world that is central to my morality and the discourse that I share with others -- that would have been shaped by that sort of discourse had I absorbed it would have resulted in a disinterest in reason and logic, and therefore my relationship with science would be altered significantly. The alteration would not necessarily take place in how invested I would be in science, but more so the motivation for being involved with science.
        In conclusion, the point I am trying to make is that science is important to me, but only so far as it provides evidence. This might offend some, and I truly might be a poser in a sense, but the politics and discourse of religion has only merely spiked my interest in science providing evidence. That is, I am not interested in practicing science, I am interested in consuming it as a discourse. Science is something I use for my subjective, non-believing perception of the world.

Who can be trusted?

First I would like to start this post by asking that no one judge me for my weird interests. Ever since I was a little girl I have been incredibly interested in Science. How did humans come into existence, where do meteorites come from, is there another form of life we do not know about yet? Most importantly when will the world end? Yes, the end of the world has puzzled me for years and has taken up countless mind wondering moments in my life( mostly in boring lectures). On to my point... I was told when I was little after asking my parents "mom dad when will the world end?" "Nikki do not worry it will not end it never can end"...GEE thank you mom and dad for trying to be heros. As I grew older I started hearing different "scientists" stating the world was going to end on certain days but they always were wrong. When I started at the University of MN I quickly enrolled in "Earth and its Enviornments" through this class we spent three lectures discussing the "Mayan Calendar Prediction" this prediction is that the earth will end in Dec of 2012... (hey wait my mom and dad said this wouldnt happen). I decided to do alittle research into the subject and found myself on the website of NASA(they know their s***) on here I found that there is no significant evidence linking the end of the world to the Mayan Calendar rending it inconclusive. So here I am.. still interested, scared for the future and hoping I do not see the end of the world in my lifetime. Science has shaped my life and now made me even more uncertain about the future. I have started to do things that I wouldnt have done before(I went skydiving, bungee jumping and cliff diving) My life has dramatically changed since Nasa told me there is no way they can conclude if this is an accurate prediction or not. Should I believe NASA or the Mayans..
For all you interested in becoming uncertain about the future.. here you go. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html

Supraventricular Tachycardia /// ?

Last fall in the beginning of my sophomore year of college here at the oh so prestigious University of Minnesota, I found myself in a hospital and with a heart that had an arrhythmia that sounded like free form jazz.

Doctors, the wielders of scientific knowledge and practice, have not been able to diagnose or treat my heart condition. Supraventricular Tachycardia (SVT) is a self diagnosis on my part by using the internet (WebMD) to diagnose myself with it. It's a broadly defined heart disorder and a fancy word for heart arrhythmia that is usually not lethal. I've had a heart monitor implanted in my chest and multiple procedures including one where they put electrodes on your heart to stimulate it. Those were doctors orders. The effects of these procedures produced were a mixed cocktail that made me feel comforted by the most cutting edge of medical diagnostic procedures but also a great deal of anxiety because science could not give me a conclusive, concise, reduced diagnosis and miracle pills to cure what I experience. I trust modern medicine a lot, it has helped my mom who has been chronically ill since the age of 18 with diseases and sicknesses ranging from a severe case of Chron's disease, skin cancer, blood clots in her brain, kidney stones, to severe lethal cases of any common sickness like strep throat or pink eye (a consequence of her Chron's disease which is autoimmune). More on that later though.

My symptoms consist of near fainting, a pounding heart which I can feel almost always, loss of motor skills, sleeplessness, severe anxiety, dizziness, nausea, pains in my chest, blurred vision, just to name a few. It happens with out warning at any time of the day.

The professional that I see here at the U, after putting me on several medications that had terrible side affects, simply put it that the best way for me to cope with my disorder is to "understand that it is mind over matter."

In a day and age where something like WebMD exists, people are constantly (over)analyzing their health. There's a disease or disorder for everything it seems. You can spend a day looking through the webpages of WebMD and the diagnose checkers and end up thinking that you have schizophrenia, ulcers, early stages of uterine cancer, and a whole plethora of diseases and disorders. I'm sure you can imagine, my imagination seems to lacking at the moment to shed light on the malarkey behind WebMD. WebMD is a prime form of modern, scientific reductionism that gives simple linear checklists that have serious consequences of promoting hypochondria in our society today.

I feel like I used WebMD out of jest. It was like spinning a bingo wheel to see what crazy ten syllable word would come out of it. The description of SVT still doesn't quite fulfill a lot of my symptoms. My professional cardiologist (or now psychologist) talks to me more about how I like it here at the U and interesting humorous anecdotes about medicine and the field of medicine, than we talk about my heart. He seems to be aware of the boundaries of what science and medicine has to offer. I feel like the culture behind being sick has been more destructive and anxiety inducing than anything else. I feel like when I express that I am sick or that I don't feel well, I need to express it in two or three word terms like everybody else does. People get really concerned when I don't (sometimes I do just tell them SVT if I'm feeling introverted).

My mom is one of the sickest people I've ever known as I've mentioned before. She results to rarely talking about her sicknesses with other people because people often let her know that she is lucky to be alive. My mom knows this but I know she doesn't like to be reminded all the time that she "should be" dead according to doctors and popular held belief. Doctors told her when she was 18 that she would not live past the age of 25. And then when she was 25, they told her 30, and then when she was 30, they told her 35. After that they gave up that shtick. Anyways, long story short, my mother's life has been constructed incredibly with the aid of science and with that an anxiety ridden life of what will happen next. Doctor's to some extent have made my mother's life a worrisome, future oriented ordeal.

"It's RLS, how about some Adderall?"

As a child I was incredibly restless- not really "full of energy" or "unable to focus" but just needed to really be moving all the time. Or at least stretching.
Since it didn't affect my grades at all my teachers paid very little attention to my obvious discomfort, as did my parents- not out of lack of care, but they just really didn't know what to chalk it up to other than that "Shelby just likes to move."
Throughout my elementary and junior high education I had to sit, stationary, in a desk for almost the entirety of the day (except for phy ed which I hated because getting hit in the face with a ball is not "moving," it's getting hit in the face). Because this was so uncomfortable I finally mentioned my restlessness to my family practice doctor during a regular physical. Without doing any tests he immediately supplied me with the phrase "Restless Leg Syndrome," and suggested that if it continues that I could be put on Adderall.

Looking back now I know that I probably did not have "Restless Leg Syndrome," or rather, I did, but I'm just like everyone else who just likes to move. We're not "sick," we don't have "a problem." We like to move. That's it. But because my education required that I sit, pay attention, and be quiet I forced myself to do that so I could "succeed" in the way that my parents and teachers wanted me to.
Am I blaming them? No.
I'm saying that the system to which I adhered restricted movement in order to create an non-chaotic and focused space and that system simply didn't work for me. There's not really place to "blame" anyone for anything, but there's room, I think, to critique the way that my "restlessness" was dealt with.

The science and politics of my "RLS" diagnosis definitely play off one another. Scientifically, I guess I have biology that leads to my need to stretch more than normal people (...?). My body needs to be fidgeting at all times. However, I think this also is a psychological thing. I was told I need to sit still for eight hours of the day with a 30 minute break to run around the playground. This, I think, led to unease simply because that's a long time to sit still so I think that anticipation made me antsy.
Politically, it's the "social norm" to sit in a classroom. To listen and watch but not move in school. So, instead of someone recognizing that I like to move around more than other children and suggesting dance, theatre, sports, etc, for me to do or even having the class sit in circles and move around during the day in productive ways I was given a "diagnosis" and told to "sit still." My "diagnosis" was also partly to settle my parents because now they didn't have a "problem child" they just had a "kid with RLS." I think that's much easier to handle than the former.

Now, from nature and nurture, I still have a very hard time sitting still, however, I've tried to focus my energy into productive outlets because the "system" isn't going to change to accommodate my needs (even though I think it might be better for everyone anyway- if we were taught regarding our whole person- body and mind- instead of just focusing on the neck up). "Nurture" has taught me how to train myself to sit still when I need to, and how to channel my energy. "Nature" screwed me and put me in a society that likes people who "sit."

Life's Scientific Method

When we talk of role models, we are typically thinking of a person, such as a sports hero, culture icon, or revolutionary. A role model is someone you try to emulate, to use his or her values to develop and tweak your own. I have many people (in all the categories previously listed and more) that I look up to and take character traits or compelling ideals from and try to apply them to myself and/or my life. Despite having a queue of these role models at my disposal, after becoming involved more in science and expanding my scientific knowledge and prowess, I began to realize that even the most basic principles of science were applicable to everyday life and shaped my character and the way I strive to live.

            In 1981, Arkansas’ governor enacted the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590 of 1981), claiming creation-science as a valid science. This was met with shock and awe to people within and outside of the scientific community. This sparked a lawsuit where the characteristics of science were declared.

1. It is guided by natural law.

 2. It must be explanatory by reference to natural law.

 3. Its conjectures are testable against the empirical world.

4. Its conclusions are tentative and not necessarily the final word.

5. It is falsifiable.

Although the above are just one judges opinion, they do describe the scientific basics sufficiently. Science is a discipline based on the curiosity of people and the desire to simply just “know”. This non-complicated principle of science has had the most profound effect on me. I think of curiosity as a constant drive, a motivator. I have always been interested by the world around me and as I delve more and more into it, the more mesmerizing it becomes! This curiosity doesn’t just apply to science though, but rather encourages me to broaden my horizons and learn about different places and topics (this can almost be a vice because I often find myself teetering on the “spread to thin” precipice). Science has also given me hope that there is always a way to find an answer or to work away around a problem. Science uses the world to explain itself. There is no supernatural intervention and science takes no religious position. This gives me confidence that I am in control of my life, and that there isn’t a deity or a fate to follow. Each person has their path determined by them alone.

            Finally, science has taught me respect and humility. Learning about the intricacies of evolution and metabolic process has shown me that symbiosis is necessary for survival and daily life. People must respect each other and the world. As Pinker says, the basis of a “just me” morality is absurd, people need to recognize one another’s beings and accept each other. So many parts of the world we live in is crucial to our life cycle, yet we are negligent and destroy it? If we are the most advanced species on the planet we need to embrace that gift and take the opportunity to nurture our vital world rather than brutalize it. Humility is taken from the last two principles. Interaction with your peers in science is a vital part of the job. Lewontin states that scientists are only individuals concerned about confronting nature rather than collaborating with their fellow scientists, the government, or the people. This is a wildly inaccurate claim. Science has always involved collaboration on many levels. Essences of science include the process of peer review and replicable experimentation by other scientists. This means that there is always a chance of a new discovery or refutation. All science is falsifiable and nothing is ever proven. In a natural and changing world there are always changes and adaptations. This reminds me to never be too sure of something and that things can change in an instant. I encourage everyone to look at the “role models” in their life on a grander scale and see if you identify with a larger subject that has shaped you. I find that reflection on this sparks passion and gives a deeper insight into who you actually are and want to become. 

Science, Self-correction, and Puzzle Pieces

I have always had a curiosity regarding science. As a child, I would ask my parents a billion questions about the world. Long after their patience had worn out, I would still have this nagging interest in how everything biological worked. Later, I became fascinated with the idea of solving the worlds mysteries with the scientific method and how the conclusions of science are added together to form a more complete understanding. I had this idea of truth after truth being discovered like individual puzzle pieces that, eventually, would all be put together in one complete picture.

With a nearly complete Bachelor of Science in Genetics, Cellular Biology and Development, my love and understanding of this method has become more informed and realistic. For those that do not have a science background, the scientific method is based on skepticism: one can never prove a hypothesis, only support it or disprove it. Unfortunately, this doesn’t lead to the immediately neat puzzle pieces I once used to describe scientific fact. The process isn’t over once a piece of data or a conclusion is published, it is then scrutinized and manipulated by the scientific community. Its conclusions are also related to, and can change the interpretation of, previous findings.

This process of self-correction in science is one of the reasons that I have faith that scientific study will eventually points into the more correct direction. For example, in class we have discussed eugenics and have tried to justify this ‘mistake’ in science by looking at the social situation surrounding it. What we haven’t talked about was exactly how this theory was perceived and rectified in the scientific community. During this time of history, there were two paradigms of genetic inheritance: Galton’s quantitative genetics and Mendel’s single gene theory. Even as Galton’s theory was approved of by society and applied to social concepts, there were many who heatedly debated that Mendel’s work with pea characteristics could be better applied to humans. Despite the initial popularity of Galton’s theory (and the deaths of hundreds of Mendel’s supporters in political movements), years of new research gradually led more to support Mendelian genetics, now the backbone of modern genetics. It is this self-correction that brings forth the ‘scientific facts’ that will withstand the tests of years of research. (On an interesting side note, Galton’s statistical genetics, despite having been the basis of eugenics, is by no means rejected in the scientific community. It is now being applied with some success to complex human diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and hypertension.)

Discovering the process by which what we ‘know’ is modified by new findings to become more complete and certain has increased my faith in science. With each new finding, our current knowledge is challenged and, if found lacking, adapted. While new publications should be taken with a grain of salt, I think we can have faith that the process called science will eventually mold each puzzle piece into its correct shape, so we can confidently use it to build a picture of the universe.

An Education

Science and I have always maintained a friendly relationship. I always found it interesting and it, I am guessing, always found me to be another one of its disciples. I have always found science to a necessary part of a well-rounded education. An Education, which together, all of the subjects I studied would lean together in harmony to create a strong and unshaken pillar of knowledge in which to enjoy for the rest of my life. This remains true (as of this writing). However, I remember a few experiences or, as I like to call them, run-ins with science that still affect me today. (Outside of my failing Chemistry of Junior year of High School because I never took the time to learn the difference between neutrons, protons, etc. [And honesty, I still don’t]).

One of these events that shaped my understanding of science and has connections to our course material happened in my 7^th grade science class in suburban Minnesota. The subject matter we were undertaking was all about Space. And it was in this science classroom that I learned that planets have different seasons because of “egg-shaped” orbits around the Sun. So, when the Earth was further away, we were in winter, and vice versa for the Summer months. Wait…what do you mean that isn’t true?! I learned in my science class! Well, it turns out my science teacher was wrong. But, before I knew this was wrong, I assumed it was right and thus believed that seasons were caused by being away from the Sun, and nothing to do with the Earth’s axis and tilt.

It took me a couple years of science course to set me straight on this matter. In fact, I Googled it to be sure before writing this! (#richpeopleproblems)

The point I am trying to make is that we BELIEVE science and those who are responsible for teaching it to us. Science has earned a spot in our culture, history, and lexicon that is unfettered, unchallenged, and well respected. And in most cases, deserving so. But, what if the facts we learn are wrong? Especially at a young age, how can we reshape our understanding of the world and, in this case, the universe?

Side Note: A good parallel to this case is a school district in Texas that selected certain history textbooks because they omitted Thomas Jefferson (and the separation of Church and State) and other historical events that did not conform to their ideals.

I am not sure exactly how to end this post. However, I would like to offer one final idea/ question: How much faith do we put in Science? Even for those on the first day of class who did not like Science, how much respect and blind following do we place behind whatever Science says? What happens when people learn Science wrong? Then what?

A League of My Own

My Story 

As a nutrition major, I see a lot of dumb things (so many, in fact, I refer to my colleagues as The League of Morons).  But it’s not just the discussion of high school freshmen-level fodder in my 4000 level classes that get to me—no, mostly it’s the blatant refutation of anything that isn’t stated verbatim in the ADA handbook.  Think Boyscouts of America versus the new kid in town.  Bible thumpers up against this girl.  Any way you slice, it’s a fight to the finish…only no one knows what they're really fighting for.

Real life example/case in point:  low-carb diets.  When Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution hit bookstore shelves in 2002, it created a dichotomous sensation—some were thrilled (“OH MY GOD STEAK FOR EVERY MEAL!!1!!!”) while others were chilled to the bone…or in some cases, their very heart.  How does this apply to me?  Well, over time, I began to notice that when I ate pasta, rice or bread during lunch, I’d feel pretty wonky afterward—like my body was trying to play "catch up."  Sometimes I'd feel legitimately sick.  However, when I stuck to mid-day meals that were little more than salad and meat (ones with little to no carbohydrates), I thrived.  While I’ve since theorized it's because my pancreas enjoys not having to release a ton of insulin three times a day, the main reason I hammer down a head of lettuce and what amounts to half a steer is because it makes me feel good.  But science doesn’t care about that, does it?

…I was once told by a very reasonable nutrition professor (who shall remain nameless) that the only thing we know for sure in the field of nutrition is that the principles of moderation, variety and balance work.  If that's the case, what's holding us back?  I thought science was supposed to be, you know, experimental in nature; I was under the impression nutrition's main focus was making people feel good instead of adhering to dogma.

Am I being unfaithful to the LOM I hope to join some day by eating a "balanced meal" only twice a day?  Is there such thing as a reasonable approach to popularly termed "unreasonable methods"?  Who knows--but in any case, I’ll be riding the fence for as long as it takes.  Or until I have a heart attack.

Concepts and Issues Present

*Reductionism:  Dietetians' viewpoints have been whittled down to so few that they're unwilling to accept (or even try to accept) new ones. 

 

*Noble Savages:  Many people assert everybody should be on lo- carbohydrate, or ketogenic, diets because that's how we're "meant" to eat.

*Psychology:  I've always perceived myself as an independent thinker--the very epitome of "the lone rebel."  Perhaps these good feelings I experience after eating my steak 'n' salad lunch comes from knowing I've done something different than everyone else.

*Technologies/Instruments:  "Oh, why is Atkins' bad for you?  Well, you wouldn't understand--and I don't have time to explain the epidemiological studies to you--so just trust us...m'kay?"  With this kind of 'Members Only' mentality geared toward an unknowing (but desperate) public, is it any wonder Men's and Women's Health are able to get away with garbage? 

*Idealology:  Put this on the side of every cereal box for the 20 years, and most people will refute any argument that doesn't line up with it.

The Omnipotence of Science - Valerie Streif

Science and mathematics, two subjects often tightly intertwined, are not the forte of many people in society. Myself included, despite classifying myself as a "science" person on the first day of this class. As a junior in high school, I was failing my accelerated chemistry course, which resulted in leaping through various hoops with the administration to drop the class midway through and have it removed from my course lists, to avoid any possibility of tarnishing my GPA. I was then put in regular chemistry, with the notion that it was evil, but at least in the mainstream class I could excel next to my less ambitious peers. Instead of shuffling through the class with an underlying hatred, however, my world was completely turned upside down. I distinctly remember the moment that made me realize that I wanted to pursue a study of chemistry. We were discussing combustion reactions and my teacher pointed out a lie that is told to us by watching science fiction/space movies: Explosions cannot occur with the absence of oxygen, thus "explosions" often created by Hollywood onboard spacecraft, are chemically impossible. My mind was blown. This seems like such a simple realization that the average student would log away to perhaps use in some form of trivia or argument about sci-fi in the future, but to me, this was the epiphany that led me to the realization that if one can understand science (notably chemistry) one can understand exactly how the world works. My focus of study took a dramatic shift from there. There is a social construction, or perhaps just a simplistic assumption about how the human brain works, that some people have Math/Science brains, and others are better suited to study of language, humanities and other liberal arts studies. This is a concept that I used to categorize myself by, but fortunately, I was able to break the chains and see the light that it is not only possible but likely that all these studies are intertwined, and that my predisposition to hating math and science says nothing about my ability to change my mind and learn to love both the subjects through intensive study. Humanities and English were no longer to be my forte and focus. I wanted science. I wanted as much random fun facts about chemistry that I could possibly find, because they led me to understanding more and more about how the world works.

I somewhat believe that this shift in my opinion is an example of a mixture of biological determinism and environmental impact on development. My father is the scientist; he loves biology and majored in it at the University of Minnesota and later went on to attend dental school here. His grammar is atrocious and he has no real interest in any fictitious literature. My mother is the humanities woman. She speaks English and French, has a knack and love for history and edits my fathers poorly constructed sentences as he speaks. My mom was a stay at home mom throughout most of my life, so the majority of time that I spent doing homework as a child was with her. She never could help me with any math homework, as she is probably the most awful mathematician in the Northern hemisphere, and from the lack of assistance, my frustration with mathematics grew exponentially throughout my primary education. This developmental environment had a significant impact on my opinions of science and math, and led to my overall disdain of those areas of study. Later on, as explained in my epiphany, I have begun to realize that I do possess an ability to understand science, likely inherited from my dad. Since I have now had the chance to discuss such matters with him, my interests have grown even more, showing the importance of not only inherited abilities but the perpetuation and strength of them acquired through my environment.

Enlightenment is an important goal that all human beings with the capacity to think should aspire to have. The ultimate enlightenment in my opinion is understanding the world to avoid being manipulated by society to thinking it is something that it is not. While I do not think that Hollywood is maliciously lying to us by producing movies such as star wars or star trek, where there are all sorts of (impossible) fires and explosions in outer space, the notion of understanding the inconsistencies and manipulations of the world are important to avoid becoming ignorant to reality. This brings up the whole question of "Do You Believe in Reality?" from Pandora's Hope, and my answer to this question is undoubtedly, yes. While my goal of this essay is not to create a religious war or debate with science, I think that science is much like a God, in the way that God is viewed by many spiritual people today. The title of this post is the "Omnipotence of Science" which is essentially the idea that even though it may not be obviously apparent to the unthoughtful mind, science is everywhere and controls everything, whether or not it is thought of that way by its observers.

That was the underlying inspiration that drove me to the study of science. Understanding that it is everywhere in our world and composes everything that we know, down to the tiniest molecular beings, and understanding that it dictates the world we live in, was enough to convince me that it is undoubtedly relevant to my life. Reality exists because science proves it so. It is everywhere and in everything. It is determinist to our society and construction of our environment and most importantly, it has the ability to answer the "how" and "why" questions that are so bothersome to people such as myself, who strive for constant enlightenment through study of the natural world.

Blog Posting #2 (due Sunday 1/29, 11:59 P.M.)

Tell a story—about science shaping your life—and use our work so far to make sense of it.

Like What? Thinking back, I (Robin) realized that I was a fidgity, loud, easily distracted (Oooo! A shiny thing….!) non-punctual, chaotic kid. The nuns in elementary school knew exactly what I was: 'an ill-behaved child' who was not 'working up to his potential.'  The appropriate treatment was time-outs, notes-to-mom, and occasional paddling. Today, I would be diagnosed ADHD and probably treated with Ritalin or Adderal. And the nuns can't paddle (by law). My life would have been different, for sure, but who knows how?

In High School, we heard all the time about who was and who wasn't 'college material.'  My SAT scores proved that I was 'college material,' and I went to college (in spite of crappy grades).

This is science at work, naming, categorizing, measuring, diagnosing, and thus creating (socially constructing) things like bad kid / ADHD kid or 'college material.'  Like all social constructions, they're absolutely 'real'; these decisions and labels have consequences; shape lives.

Carl Elliot would help by framing historically-local 'disorders,' and talking about the 'semantic contagion' involved in lots of articles about ADHD and child-rearing. I think my whole attitude toward 'school' got shaped here.  Pinker would look to my genes (and my OC father and alcoholic but literate parents). Lewontin would insist that naming a kid 'disordered' (or not) changes him or her, and that the diagnoses mirror and legitimate already-present societal beliefs.

And most useful, maybe, might be Latour's account of the ways 'devices for seeing' (his Topofil, Munsell color code, technical names like 'sandy loam,' maps, theories etc.) literally make the mud and worms of Amazonia into 'facts' and data that can move around, that can be talked about, that take on scientific reality.  The DSM criteria that define a 'disorder' also make it.  Terms like ADHD or SAT scores don't simply refer to some neurological pattern in Robin's head (and body).  They construct Robin (and all his fidgety friends, some of whom went to college).

So really:  how did science construct you (or your family, friends or the world you live in)? Let your Science and Culture friends know about you. And explain some science-in-action.  Use our readings to frame and illuminate.

Concepts and Issues—from our work (some of many; might help):

Big Ones: All societies have always had 'theories' of Human Nature (science) and these are active in creating specific Political Systems (politics). Always intertwined.

• determinisms (genetic, biological, cultural and so on)

• reductionisms (limiting our view to a few of many possible causes and influences)

• boundary work (ways science limits, defines, circumscribes)

• ideology (the world view that makes things normal, natural, common-sense. It's always 'political')

• technologies / seeing devices / instruments (tests, surgeries, therapies, names-and-definitions, measuring and seeing instruments, ways of talking or writing)

• 'blank slate' (or tabula rasa)

• 'ghost in the machine' (our friend the self or soul)

• noble savages or states of nature

• and with these three (above): John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Jean Jacques Rousseau,--and Ahnoald Schwarzenegger (they'll ALL 'be back'!)

• sociobiology or evolutionary psychology (as disciplines)

• neuroscience / cognitive science (also disciplines—CF: 'boundary work')

Comprehending through the heart.

I always followed my heart in making many important decisions. This may seem very wrong to most people and scientifically not proven yet, but I strongly believe that the heart is the body organ that makes us understand everything around us. The author says that not scientifically literate person can believe that the events narrated in the book of Genesis actually took place and that we are in need to a new theory of human nature. I have to disagree with the author. Yes, many scientific researchers have found that our decisions, thinking and comprehending come from the brain's interpretation to things around us. Scientist came up with so many theories related to the human nature, but the right interpretation in my opinion came from God. The author tells us how the Bible says that there are faculties in our bodies that help us in making decisions and give us an accurate picture of the world. He then disagrees with the Bible and says it is not scientific thinking. However, the Bible's explanation was later supported by another book from God, the Qura'an. In the Qura'an there are few versus that explain that the place for thinking and making decisions is the heart. Our brains interpret what is going on around us and transmit signals to the heart to make decisions and comprehend it.
From my experience during Qura'an studies, I found that scientists can come up with so many theories, but a good number of these theories are not true and based on personal beliefs. God created us and the logical explanation to many things in our lives will be found in God's books whether it's the Qura'an or the Bible. Therefore, the author's idea of disregarding what the Bible indicated about the human nature does not make sense. No one can know the details and mechanisms of a thing more than the creator.

Since I noticed they were quite small last time

let's try again shall we!

Todays board 1/24/2012

May be out of order but you can deal.

Pinker's Naturalization

“The reason for the survival of these recurrent determinist theories is that they consistently tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo, and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race, or sex. These theories provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilization laws, and also for the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”

-- Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin CONFIRMS one of my deeply-held values in this quote from Pinker’s essay.

I entered into college as a computer science major planning to specialize in computational biology. This would allow me to work on the cutting edge of science that deals with “mapping out the mind” through computer science. There are plenty of theories out there today that are about how scientists can figure out how the mind works. It just so happens that Steven Pinker wrote a book called How the Mind Works. I read it during high school and other scientific work about how they’re every so slowly but surely “mapping out the mind”. Though I was highly sold on this idea and scientific work something seemed amiss and ominous about mapping out the mind. We human beings, no nothing more complex in the universe than our own brains. The potential agency of knowing how are brain works creates a fear in me like no other. I told myself when entering college; why not look into it deeper then?

When Pinker talks about the fear of nihilism and determinism, he doesn’t quite convince me for once. In his talk about the fear of determinism he dodges discussing about the actual genetics part and doesn’t talk about how dangerous the naturalization of things really are. Although, let’s not forget that this essay is talking about “human nature”. He considers a few of the prominent views of human nature but doesn’t reject the notion that there is a human nature either. Hence, there seems to be some sort of naturalization going on in his work. Pinker rejects the notion of the Blank Slate, which allows room for his belief in naturalization (genetics). This sentence seems to capture what I’m talking about here, “I think a better understanding of what makes us tick [I agree with], and our place in nature, can clarify those values [I don’t agree with].” Those values he’s talking about are moral values and he is ever so suggesting that there exists a human nature.

Just a side note - Pinker is self-aware and points out that it is “essential to look at the connection between politics and the science with some care, and to ask why are there such emotional reactions.” Though he doesn’t dig into why people want to naturalize human behavior into a nature.

I got 99 problems but science aint one

For me a phrase that deals with one of my deeply-held beliefs is one in reference to the reaction to sociobiology- “From the academic left, there was a vehement, and sometimes violent, reaction to the people who first publicized these ideas in the 1970s” (5)    

This moment is strongly charged for me because it reminds me of the politics that are often involved in science. People and in this case people who work in academic setting will discount scientific work because it does not fit with their worldview. My belief that is challenged is that unless I can explain why something that is scientifically proven or proposed is wrong, I should not reject is simply because I feel it might be wrong or dislike the implications of the knowledge that is found. The critique form the left in this case that Pinker gives in this speech is that the ideas of sociobiology are used to justify the status quo and then of course are brought to the ultimate popular criticism of comparing anything we don’t like or disagree with to Nazi Germany.  Now for me this is not just an issue for the left but I do find it more of a problem since the criticism presented in Pinker’s speech comes from academics.  I don’t think that religious leaders or groups who discredit science are as harmful or dangerous as academics, and especially highly respected evolutionary biologists who instead of employing valid criticisms of methodology or counter research employ emotional appeals and political name calling to try to discount work that disagrees with their world view. I think the implications for the ‘science  wars’ of such a level of discourse are very important. How can we expect the regular public to trust scientific work when even those who understand what is being done chose to simply call their opponent a Nazi and leave it at that?  I feel like the questioning of reality that is brought out Latour is fitting here because it is exactly that kind of disconnect from any reality that occurs when we allow our emptions instead of facts to get in the way of academic work.

            I do believe that there is and always will be a bias to scientific work, and there is certainly much possibility to misuse the knowledge that is gathered every day. But the best way to truly discredit work that is incorrect is to engage it and show how it is false, not to discount it entirely because we do not like what we might find. We should have one reality in which sociobiology is studied until we understand it as much as we can, not multiple realities in which those who are studying the topics are either Nazis, scientists, or perhaps Reaganites seeking to oppress the 99% through genetically justifying their oppressive socioeconomic regime.

*To fit a bit more with my own belief,  I did look a bit more at the criticism that Gould levied at Wilson and it was not as simplistic as what is presented in the limited space that Pinker can afford it, but I do feel that it is the larger phenomenon of discounting work because we disagree with the conclusions that is important here.