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.