"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?

Conspiracy theory?

"What has become of critique when a book that claims that no
plane ever crashed into the Pentagon can be a bestseller? I am ashamed to
say that the author was French, too.6 Remember the good old days when
revisionism arrived very late, after the facts had been thoroughly established,
decades after bodies of evidence had accumulated? Now we have the
benefit of what can be called instant revisionism."

Latour brought up a very important point, instant revisionism. In our days, with all the technology we have, the instant revisionism starts seconds after an incident happens. I was watching the news once and they were covering a house fire that was still going on. Three possibilities of the reason behind the fire were listed while the fire was still going on. They were not based on facts, but rather predictions. The major problem "especially in the news"is that before the facts are out, specialists and analysis start filling the viewers mind with different types of information that are based on " it could be this, or that, or maybe this!"

Now, does believing in conspiracy theories make me stupid? I'm not sure. We find it easier to believe what the government wants us to believe. It is fed to us through the media, books and movies. Many "conspiracy theories" came out after 9/11. Do I believe all of them? No, but I'm sure that there is more to the story than a group of Muslim terrorists attacked the US because "they hate our freedom".

Jesse Ventura comes to my mind when we talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories. He worked on proving that 9/11 was an inside job and that the "facts given by the government" do not equal "science". Little he knows that facts do not equal science 90% of the time.

WARS WARS WARS.

“Wars. So many wars. Wars outside and wars inside. Cultural wars, science wars, and wars against terrorism. Wars against poverty and wars against the poor. Wars against ignorance and wars out of ignorance.”

The opening paragraph to Latour’s article sets the tone and a common understanding with the reader as to what is about to be addressed. The wars referred to in the passage are “outside” and “inside,” meaning within certain groups and among different groups (possibly nations). The cultural wars focuses primarily on differences and conflict between those values considered to be liberal (progressive) and those considered conservative (traditional). These wars can be about many different subjects ranging from abortion and censorship issues, to the separation of church and state and other issues. The name “culture wars” was refashioned by James Davison Hunter in his 1991 publication of Culture Wars: The struggle to Define America. This specifically looked at the dramatic realignment and polarization that transformed American Culture and its politics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war) As described in this publication, culture wars can reside inside of one nation (like America) or between clashing cultures (America and Iraq).

Science wars refers to intellectual exchanges between ‘scientific realists and postmodernist critics’ over the nature of scientific theory. This “war” took place primarily in the US in the 1990s, but has spread to other parts of the world, especially Europe. Topics of these science wars included: scientific objectivity, cultural anthropology, scientific method, feminist studies, media studies, and many more. Science wars in my mind focus mainly on the validity of humanities sciences and the social sciences alike, as compared to the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc). It’s not like scientists duking it out over which theory is more correct, it’s more like scientists and well-informed public people questioning the validity of what is being announced as a science or fact.

         We all know about the war against terrorism and the war against the poor (99%) but the part of this segment that really caught my eye was the “war against ignorance and wars out of ignorance” part. I would agree that the largest threat that mankind has, is to itself. If the public and general masses are uneducated and uninformed, they are ignorant and do not know exactly what they are fighting for… or against.

      The relevance of this on our learnings in class is with the debate over outlawing Female Genital Mutilation in African and other countries. I feel that people who live in the United States and other first world countries are so gun-hoe against the acts and pro-abolishing the tradition are a bit ignorant. They realize the dangers and risks that come with FGM, but not the cultural backing of it. Many polls have shown that even if the procedure was made illegal, over 80% of women would still seek to receive it illegally, which brings new dangers and horrid black market possibilities. Many people are fighting for the rights of women who do not want those rights, they are ignorant to the facts of the culture and the possible banishment and punishment that comes with those who do not follow cultural norms. Education is key and I think that if progress is to be made on this health concern, it should simply be a possibility for safer and cleaner places and procedures to be carried out, not for it to be abolished all together. 

I thought this image was an excellent resource, showing clearly how tradition carries on and cultures vary, among even the closest of Aftican countries.

masquerading as critique

“Remember the good old days when

Revisionism arrived very late, after the facts had been thoroughly established, decades after bodies of evidence had accumulated? Now we have the

benefit of what can be called instant revisionism. The smoke of the event has

not yet finished settling before dozens of conspiracy theories begin revising

the official account, adding even more ruins to the ruins, adding even more

smoke to the smoke. What has become of critique when my neighbor in

the little Bourbonnais village where I live looks down on me as someone

hopelessly naıve because I believe that the United States had been attacked

by terrorists? Pg 228

I have not been Latour’s biggest supporter throughout this semester but after reading this paper I have taken a new liking to what he is saying due to that fact that he even critiques his previous work and takes responsibility for maybe being wrong. Latour poses the question, what exactly has happened to critique? Latour caught my attention of how critique has changed (run out of steam) when he used the example of 9/11 and the Twin Towers as Jean Baudrillard claimed in her published book that acts of terrorism did not occur (how ridiculous) and posed a conspiracy theory in replace of 'facts'. This is a great example of what Latour meant by saying that critiquing has started to go down the wrong path, a dangerous path. "What has critiquing come to when you are thought to be naive because I believe the United States had been attacked"

Although conspiracy theorists like Baudrillard are usually seen in a negative light they often spread fear among their audience and give "facts" in support of their one-sided argument, this enacts fear of the world around them. Latour makes the monumental point that Critical Theory died a long time ago. He states in his concluding paragraph that we need to get back to becoming critical again in a way that generates more not less, being associated with multiplication and not subtraction. In a nutshell (mom) Latour is stating that Critique should be helpful and not add negativity to ideas or in his example of 9/11, an event. I agree that critique needs to get on the right path and off this dangerous path of destruction because I was a 'victim' myself of dangerous critiquing recently when I was discussing the events that unfolded on 9/11. "Bush planned it are you crazy, we went after the wrong guy".... I am the crazy stupid one for believing in fact and not these conspiracy theories that masquerade as critique. 

Welcome Reality

Here's a dramatization [because we're dealing with war(s) here], here's my theatrics for you Ben. This reading was like having surgery: comfortably drugged where things are light and humorous, surgically removing disconnected tissues (issues), having a pit/void wide open, filling it back in with the tissues (issues) reconnected and connected in new ways, and finally comfortably walking away from the surgical table, groggy but energized, feeling like a million bucks, like waking up from a bizarre dream and asking yourself what just happened, but then it hits you: the eureka moment. And you realize the surgery went flawlessly and that you are a changed (better/healthier) person. [Reading Latour in general, is like surgery, sometimes there are complications though.]


As one could get from my little anecdote, I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Here's part of my war story. I should have read this many years ago when I was first exposed to post-modernism, science studies and even conspiracy theories where my own fabric of reality was shaken. Making me question everything. Once I got my fingers wrapped around what the notion of social construction meant, it was like a gun in my hand pointed backwards (I know better now because of Latour to grant the gun so much agency but for the sake of more of theatrics). Deconstructions and social constructions, threatened a critical part of my identity which lies in science and the empirical.


Today in a culture where Hollywood films with tag lines such as "Everything is suspect... Everyone is for sale... And nothing is what it seems" (p. 230) that pique the interest and sentiments of the people, it is ever so important to reclaim reality, facts, science and critique. Latour offers us a new arsenal: using critique that deals with "matters of concern". Believing in reality needs to be cool again. 


"Whatever the words, what is presented here is an entirely different attitude than the critical one, not a flight into the conditions of possibility of a given matter of fact, not the addition of something more human that inhumane matters of fact would have missed, but, rather, a multifarious inquiry launched with the tools of anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, sociology to detect how many participants are gathered in a thing to make it exist and to maintain its existence. Objects are simply a gathering that has failed-a fact that has not been assembled according to due process." (p. 245-246)


Again Latour is arguing here for a more connected science. In order to be realistic about science studies one must identify how and what some thing is connected and associated to. One can not take something out of context and analyze it as an individual entity. This is what Latour is talking about when he talking about objects. Objects (and facts) are taken out of their associations to other things and analyzed independently. How to analyze something as a thing, one can use the humanities to uncover the actors/participants in what makes up that thing. These participants define what a thing is, makes it real, and gives it context. 


I'm thinking that I want to write a paper called Constructing Risk From the (De)Constructions of Risk. This paper would be about: in my developing field of repertoire and expertise - statistics and how it deals with uncertainty, risk and how it gets confused with uncertainty, and just in general how risk discourses pervades our culture (as someone said that we live in the "Risk Society") and how statistics is put holding hands with risk in these discourses. I think there's a lot of work to be done in making statistics more connected and "thingy" by gathering and explicating associations. Risk has everything to do with all of these conspiracies and mistrust in science. As Latour said some thing to the fact that there will always be a level of uncertainty in the scientific process, that is to be certain. 


Here's a really interesting quote from a statistician dealing with matter of fact and matter of concern. Uncertainty seems to be an object in this quote. Not a thing. Uncertainty in this case is its own entity devoid how it is uncertain. I've stared at this quote for an hour and haven't come up with anything conclusive but something how this guy nuances statistics, is really interesting. So I open this up to you bloggers to give me a billion subtle thoughts about this quote!


"... it is only the manipulation of uncertainty that interests us. We are not concerned with the matter that is uncertain. Thus we do not study the mechanism of rain; only whether it will rain." - Dennis Lindley

Reality isn't Real or Something

“Reality is not defined by matters of fact.” 231

This sentence from Latour easily makes it into the top 3 phrases/ideas that I’ve come out of this course with. It is a statement that I find not only incredibly true, but relevant in any controversial argument or situation or, for that matter, any situation in a life.

Latour is dealing directly with science when he makes his claim that reality ≠ facts and, if I may just take one more step here, that neither reality nor facts equal truth (or Truth or “truth” or…). I believe that this idea can be imposed upon things other than science though, such as my life (for example):

In class we’ve discussed a number of debated issues, recently GMOs, global warming, and sexual identity. Latour would definitely question all of us in asserting a point because we first need to scrutinize our evidence that we bring forth to defend our position, where the information is coming from, and also (this is important) where we are coming from- our worldview (our reality) will influence how we see the “facts” that we are presented with and how we will repeat them to others. This has everything to do with IDENTITY- another huge, HUGE, concept that we dealt with throughout this entire course.

Once we establish that our “facts” were handpicked by us (our person, lets keep in mind, is controlled by our “identity”) to perfectly present our (correct?) point of view, we can then determine how our “reality” is not really “reality” (as in “right,” “correct,” ‘straightforward”). This is what Latour is saying: that our reality might be created out of “facts” but it’s not created out of facts. It’s a self-made creation and no ones reality is the same.

The idea that “facts” can create any number of realities is easily provable by using the scientific discussions we had in class as an example. Our discourse surrounding GMOs, global warming, and sexual identities was all about rhetoric. One person could one day tell the whole class how GMOs “are actually, like, really bad for you” and then the next week that same person could write a blog post about how GMOs are “kind of ok and are probably really helpful in the long run- especially (maybe only) in terms of body function- cancer saving cells anyone??” (I can prove that because the “one person” was me.) The “facts” involving GMOs and all the other controversies in this class don’t prove shit, and we know it (now). It’s been shown to us time and time again but I don’t believe that this means that all of us can walk around the U denouncing anyone for saying anything concrete because it’s all “nothing, man, like it’s all conceptual, it’s your own reality.” Just because you believe criminals should be punished doesn’t mean you have to believe in the death penalty (THANK YOU MICHAEL CRICHTON/KENNER). We can acknowledge that our world is being manipulated by manipulated information and, in some cases, even wrong information. Facts that aren’t factual, or aren’t telling the whole truth, are determining policies and grant money and etc but once that is acknowledged, you can see right through it. It’s important to realize that you’re not being given the entire argument (almost ever) so you can take it upon yourself to indulge in our Information Age to discover the real story and construct as close to the “whole truth” that you can get at. 

As a matter of fact....

“But this meant accepting much too uncritically what matters of fact were . . . Reality is not defined by matters of fact. Matters of fact are not all that is given in experience. Matters of fact are only very partial and, I would argue, very polemical, very political renderings of matters of concern and only a subset of what could also be called states of affairs.” (231)

After reading Latour this semester, I wasn’t his biggest fanboy. However, after reading this essay I lightened up on the guy and appreciated what he was saying and trying to illuminate in the selections from Pandoras Hope. This being my first CSCL class, much of the semester I was thinking exactly what this essay addresses, “What’s real if nothing is actually real?” Granted that statement has many holes in it, but you get what I am saying.

Having a scientific mind and desire to discover and know things, the idea that science could be unraveled through intense critique worried me. The way Latour describes facts as critical and political entities with aspects of them misconstrued or misrepresented rung very true to me, especially in the debate regarding GMOs. The science behind GMOs (much like the science behind global warming or any controversy for that matter) is molded to best support the interest of the financer. Latour says we are accepting facts without truly thinking about them and analyzing them. I couldn’t agree more with this statement. Opinions are often formulated without education or rational thought. The mob mentality (of both the educated and uneducated) is a prevalent force. Finding facts that blurs what the realities of GMOs are detracts from the actuality of GMOs. Science becomes skeptic with many different issues because science can be used to dissuade people from acceptance, but also use their empirical power to promote approval. As Latour said, facts are commonly used to take away from reality, but what happens when we add reality to facts? This is the question we must answer.

Acceptances of fact, whether they support or refute your position, without careful assessment can, and will, lead society down a dangerous path. Blind belief causes controversy because each side of the argument has “facts” backing up their position. Like Latour says, facts are not the only thing that factors into an experience, or a thing. The evidence supporting the basis that reality is made up of more than facts is that we are debating on whether there is actually a reality. If reality were purely factual, there would be no question as to what reality encompassed. However, realizing that whatever reality you choose to believe is made up of a multitude of interacting and compounding parts, of which formulation and acceptance of facts is just a small part, will allow identification of what Latour calls matters of concern. 

The real meaning of "conspiracy"

One passage that really stuck out in my mind was this:


"What’s the real difference between conspiracists and a popularized, that is a teachable version of social critique inspired by a too quick reading of, let’s say, a sociologist as eminent as Pierre Bourdieu (to be polite I will stick with the French field commanders)? In both cases, you have to learn to become suspicious of everything people say because of course we all know that they live in the thralls of a complete illusio of their real motives. Then, after disbelief has struck and an explanation is requested for what is really going on, in both cases again it is the same appeal to powerful agents hidden in the dark acting always consistently, continuously, relentlessly" (pg. 228-29).

I think this largely summarizes not only what we have worked on in this course, but more specifically what we have talked about in the last few weeks with global warming/climate change. Often times I think we view scholars and academia as information to believe- the right information. The example used in this passage is Bourdieu. In academia, we see Bourdiau as a sociologist, not as a conspiracy theorist. The topics he writes on are backed up by other theorists, making it more believable and more credible to readers like ourselves. An example of this is State of Fear. Crichton uses and manipulates statistics in a way that makes it very believable. He uses "real" statistics that most readers would believe, because we grow up in a society where the statistics are always "right".  

On the contrary, conspiracy theorists are viewed much more negatively. I think back to the Greenpeace vs. Heartland debate, and I see both those organizations as conspiracies. They both present one-sided arguments, and lead people to become suspicious of the world around us. A lot of people either strongly agree or strongly disagree with each of those organizations immediately based on prior beliefs. I feel like the rhetoric used by conspiracists is a lot less convincing than scholars because the extreme views are more apparent right away.   

In conclusion, scholars and conspiracy theorists are often times saying the same information, just with different rhetoric. Conspiracy theorists are seen as much more extreme, but scholars seem more knowledgeable, and, to most people, more believable. Scholars are more subtle in their beliefs, and that is done on purpose to make it seem more believable. But, in both cases, as the passage states disbelief is struck at some point. Generally, with conspiracists this disbelief happens sooner than with scholars because with scholars, more conscious thought and decoding of the rhetoric is needed to realize the true motives that they have. But, in the end, disbelief happens either way and there is suspicion of the "facts" and motives. The comparison between State of Fear and Greenpeace/Heartland I think is a good example of what Latour talks about in his passage because SoF is seen as more acadmic, more backed up, where Greenpeace/Heartland seems more conspiracy- like. Regardless, they both have motives that they want readers to believe.

Despite being wordy, a bit confusing and very... Latour-ish, this article really hit home for me.  In the past couple of years, my dad, who has a lot of influence on me in terms of how I see the world, has changed a lot of his perspectives.  It's no longer MSNBC or CNN stations on the T.V. but instead he often retreats to watching the Alex Jones channel on youtube.  I will confess, I watch a lot of the conspiracy theory documentaries, such as End Game and Loose Change, and I am beginning to doubt a lot of the things that are pushed in our faces by the media everyday. While I do not think that you can take every conspiracy theory word for word, I think that a lot of them deserve more credit and attention than they get.

"Now we have the benefit of what can be called instant revisionism. The smoke of the event has not yet finished settling before dozens of conspiracy theories begin revising the official account, adding even more ruins to the ruins, adding even more smoke to the smoke. What has become of critique when my neighbor in 

the little Bourbonnais village where I live looks down on me as someone hopelessly nai¨ve because I believe that the United States had been attacked by terrorists? Remember the good old days when university professors 

could look down on unsophisticated folks because those hillbillies naı¨vely believed in church, motherhood, and apple pie? Things have changed a lot, at least in my village."

This segment from Latour essentially summarizes the paradigm shift and overall change in attitude of the public towards events in our lives and the general mechanism of how we react to major changes and traumatic events.  In some respects, I believe Latour is being very negative in this passage, somewhat concluding that the newfound instant revisionism is always jumping to conclusions and is often incorrect. I believe major traumatic events, such as 9-11, need this instant revisionism mindset to criticize the "why" they happened before worse things result from them, such as the war in the Middle East.  While I realize there are a multitude of factors that play into why we went to war in the Middle East, it is without a doubt that the 9-11 "terrorist" attacks sparked a widespread panic and  fear that mobilized citizens and gained support for one of the most pointless wars in history.  It is true that jumping to conclusions can definitely leave a lot of facts out in the dust, unanalyzed, but I believe conspiracy theories are not all hogwash and arise because there are holes in the stories that the media and government tell us.  Having people to critique the information that is spewed into our televisions and on our radio is just another system of checks and balances.  It prevents the people in power from only promoting and circulating information that they know their constituents want to hear.  I believe that there has been a huge attitude shift in the people of the United States, and we are on the brink of something quite dramatic.  A statistic I read a few days ago stated that gun sales have been at an all time high, with Americans buying over 5 million guns last month.  This to me indicates a revolution is in the works.  People are becoming more critical of this "reality" that is shown to them on the nightly news.  They are becoming more critical and are sick of being lied to. 

  The second part of this passage, where he discusses the change in attitudes of the "sophisticated/intelligent" towards the "unsophisticated/uneducated." This part kind of confuses me, because I believe the change he is discussing potentially isn't a bad thing.  Being in college, I have definitely encountered way more atheists than religious, and the religious that I have encountered are the ones that turn people on the fence off to the entire concept of religion entirely. I personally haven't put much thought into the issue, but I don't believe that "traditional values" are completely inconsistent or incompatible with being educated. 

Applying this change in mindset of instant revisionism to a common problem brings about the anti-vaccine lobby that had a lot of attention when Michele Bachmann was still a potential candidate for the GOP.  To assert that vaccines are the "cause" of autism or that they are "bad" because of the preservatives they contain or other ingredients, is very much jumping to conclusions and having the instant revisionism mindset.  Looking for answers, ignoring the facts.  After reading several journal articles by many neurologists and other researchers investigating autism, I am convinced that it is not the vaccines that are administered to young children, but rather the lack of a specific enzyme in the systems of these children, making it impossible for their bodies to filter out the heavy metals and preservatives that they encounter, some which are in vaccines.  This is where instant revisionism can be dangerous, because it causes a scare in people that forces them to make a decision or a judgment about something, ruling it to be "dangerous" and avoid it entirely.  

Criticisms are important because they keep those in power in check and they are a fundamental component of science.  Always question, always search for answers.  A later point made by Latour in this article regarding "critical barbaricary" is important to note, because it sets a standard or a paradigm for critics to operate within to have their thoughts be worthwhile or have a meaning.  It is important to maintain standards when criticizing anything, because criticism without warrants or facts hurts the entire skeptical institution.  To maintain a reality, it is important to seek facts and to construct your world viewpoint from those facts, to avoid being clouded by influential nonsense.