In conclusion...

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

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

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