Opening My Eyes

Of everything that we discussed this semester I think the thing that amazed me the most was just the simple correlation between culture and science. I had never really thought about how things like religion and politics play directly into how we interpret science. Not to say that I was oblivious to the bias inherent in our system, just that I had never had it thrown at me and discussed in such detail. There are the obvious things where the bias is apparent, such as global warming and our last section of the class, but I was more surprised when we talked about things like apotemnophilia and corn and all the cultural implications these things have. I will also take away our discussions from the poster presentations and the trends that were observed our history and how they are directly related to cultural norms at the time.

I also found some of the more philosophical concepts, like the idea of Cartesianism and the language of science, very interesting. They are things so deeply imbedded in our lives that I didn't even realize their existence until it was pointed out to me. Overall, I think this course taught me to listen to all sides of a story and to find where my facts are coming from before forming an opinion on the matter.

Everything is Corn!

I think the one thing that I will always remember from this class is discussing the issues and concerns surrounding food. I am pretty sure I will always be haunted by the fact that everything is made of corn. I had no idea how dependent we were on corn, and how it has changed human lives forever (and that we also have changed corn forever). I feel a little ignorant growing up in the MidWest and not knowing the impact of it.

It's upsetting because of how corn has invaded pretty much every aspect of our lives. I was shocked to find that even our fish were starting to eat it, ridiculous! My grocery store experiences have been profoundly changed by the discussions and topics surrounding food in this class. I had always thought of myself as "above average" in the ways of nutrition. But I found that accomplishing a well rounded diet is pretty much impossible with all of the corn in everything. I find myself looking at labels even more than I used to.

Our class was awesome with discussions. I learned a lot from just their comments in class. I was intrigued by how so many people new about food being thrown away. I was so shocked by the massive amounts of food that gets disposed of when there are so many people who are starving. I was brought out of my little bubble with class discussions, and I now see things in a different way.

Cartesian Driven World

Of all the things we talked about this semester (cutting limbs, 6 genders, the end of the world, etc.) I would say that the most memorable thing we talked about was the effect of Cartesian thinking on our society. Our lives are structured in such organized ways where there are steps we take in certain situations, rules of logic we apply to make the "best" decisions, and labels we create to organize our world. Realizing actually how deeply integrated this idea is into our society kind of scares me, to be honest. Its overwhelming to realize that there may have been a different way of thinking, once upon a time. Or maybe not. This could be just the way our human nature is, we need to organize in this way and use our "logic". But in any case, it was most fascinating to me to realize this idea.

This idea ties into our discussion about Brave New World, where we have two completely different worlds, the "civilized" and the "savage". One bases all decisions on Cartesian logic, the other on feelings, or whatever. Although the novel took these ideas to extremes, i think that its very important to see the immense contrast, and to see where we fit in as a society. Every time I make a decision I think about it in a new light. There are always two ways to make a decision. For example, I could do a cost benefit analysis to figure out what is a better decision, or I could draw a slip of paper and let "fate" decide. I have to say that I have no idea where I would fit into this binary, but I think thats the point.

That brings me to my last point, where id like to say, as I sort of mentioned in class, that overall I think that the most important thing I have taken out of this class is that I have no idea. There are so many different ways at looking at things, and so many of them make perfect sense. I cant say that i'm able to make better decisions in life, in fact, i'm practically unable to make any decisions at all now because there are so many angles to consider. But I think that education and knowledge is much more than knowing where you stand in the society. Its really just about experience and the rest of it will fall in to place, hopefully, and I think that the most that this class did was try to bring that kind of thinking to the University setting, where everything taught in a very linear way. It was different, but in some small way it opened my eyes to the chaos of the world, so thanks.

what to call myself now...

This semester is my last one as an undergrad, and ever since I heard that I had enough credits to graduate a year early, I've been a little unnerved. My aunts and uncles and my grandparents were all thrilled for me, constantly asking what I had planned for my future, proud that I had been so driven and was able to finish ahead of schedule...but the truth is I never intended to finish school early, and if I wasn't paying for my education with loans, I would have stayed in college for at least another year. Because my answer to my relatives' questions was always the same: I don't know.

A few of my relatives told me to appreciate that freedom. To take advantage of not having any ties and go and experience life...but I always thought, that's easy for them to say, they aren't the ones with all this "freedom." Up until the end of this semester, that lack of knowledge, that uncertainty about where I was going and what I was doing was entirely terrifying. I knew everything would work out, I wasn't genuinely "afraid" of anything, but something still made me uncomfortable when I thought about life post-grad. I didn't understand what it was until this semester that was throwing me for such a serious loop, but now I think I get it.

I knew that we lived in a Cartesian society, that we loved to categorize and classify everything around us, but it didn't strike me until this class that that includes ourselves. My fear for my future was that someone would ask me who I was and what I was doing and for the first time, I wouldn't have a definition of myself to give to other people. In high school, people would ask me about myself and I could say "I'm a student" or "I'm a choir-nerd" and in college I've been able to say "I'm an English major." In a few days, I will no longer be that. I'll be a college grad, true, but that will be my past. Telling people I'm a waitress isn't a category that I want to put myself in, yet I'm sure really sure what category I want to put myself in yet. I won't have a label that I can be happy to tell people about, that I want to define myself by.

I get when people say that what we've talked about in class has been a little unnerving, but it's sort of had the opposite effect on me. I went into this past semester totally ready to not have to go to class anymore, but really unsure of what that meant for who I was going to be when I was done. Now, while the idea of not having a nice, handy label for myself is still a little daunting, I think the things we've talked about in class have been sort of reassuring. The labels we come up with as a society are definitely not always right, and in a lot of ways can be more restricting than helpful, so maybe the same will be true for me. Maybe what my relatives say will be true, and the freedom will be, well, freeing!

How do I use this?

I am left unsure of what to do with the knowledge I have acquired. I am a scientist, a biologist, but now I am more unsure than ever of what this means. I had thought that this position would entitle me to a superior understanding of the world that had authority over other views. While I still believe the lens I use to view the world will give me the most accurate view possible, and I am not certain i will ever see absolute truth. One thing I now understand is that nobody sees the full truth. I must now acknowledge the ways that the "humanities" will always affect science. The two are intertwined, and I will forever see a hybrid when I think of how the world works. I now also understand why some people do not accept science as a supreme source of truth. These people live in a different view of reality, with their own paradigms, and their own concepts at the center of their hybrids. I will always be cautious in my quest to understand the world, and I will ask where the facts that I make come from. Despite being more unsure of myself, I definitely know more, and I am content with this new knowledge.

A REALISTIC REALSIM

Latour’s, “realistic realism”, is a concept I’ve been fighting since it was first introduced to me early on in the semester. Understanding the relationship between ontology and epistemology through the lens of a realistic realism has exposed the interconnectivity between the Cartesian “brain-in-vat”, and the outside world, and how science and politics are necessarily linked to and work through each other. Accepted concepts like “Might is Right” or scientific truth versus mob rule are suddenly delegitimized and falsified because science has been placed unjustifiably above common knowledge. A fact then, does not become a fact until it has been accepted as common knowledge. It is this point, when examined, and applied, that has colored and complicated my interpretation of the world.

We know the danger in relying on “facts” that fail to get the “mob” to go along with them; look to our discussions/debates on issues regarding global warming, food and the fossil fuel economy, and Michael Crichton’s real-world impact through the vehicle of a fictional novel. Rhetoric and fact are deeply connected, but in making them ontologically separate, we are unable to settle those issues that are connected to them because of the hierarchical structuring of scientific fact and the mob’s common knowledge. Latour reminds us however that this relationship is not vertical it is instead circular: fact and common knowledge depend on each other—one does not command the other. Latour’s fourth “public representation loop” (Latoure, p. 105) illustrates this point nicely, capturing the ways in which common knowledge plays a part in what scientific fact claims to be true.

Initially, I stood in contestation with this claim. How can the talk-show friendliness of a scientific fact affect whether or not that fact actually becomes one? Having completed the course, I now have a better idea of what Latour was getting at—although I’m not sure I will ever understand his reasoning entirely. In a way, if everyone were to believe in something, it makes it true. Where there is no belief, there is no fact. There is no sole determining factor in the creation of fact, there is instead a series of complex and interconnected relationship that work together to determine whether a claim becomes a fact or not. It is important for me to keep these things in mind. As a political science major, much of my time is spent exploring concepts of human nature, examining the role and likelihood of international cooperation, understanding the implications of international and domestic policy and so fourth. All of these concepts, in some way or another, are affected by the interpretation and implications of fact—scientific or not. Changing understanding is no longer dependent on the power of facts, it is instead dependent on the systems of signification and meaning that work to constitute and shape our very subjectivities.

Even before taking this class, the issue of diet and what I chose to consume has been big in my life. In high school, my mom and I started eating healthier, buying more organic and fresh foods, and discussing health and nutrition articles that we happened to find. Reading 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' deepend my interest in closely examining what I eat and where it comes from. I found this text, along with the overall themes of the class, frustrating (in a good way) because it challenges me, and forces me to question what is real and what is 'right'. I have been a vegetarian for the last four years, I try really hard to eat healthy and I admit to being drawn to local/ organic foods and places like the seward co*op. After reading Pollan's book and his views on the "stories" that places like whole foods feed you, factory Vs.family farm practices and corn, I had to ask myself what I believed in, what is real.Do I abstain from eating meat because it is gross or because I dislike the idea of eating the flesh of another living thing? Is it for health reasons? Is it because I disagree with the idea of growing animals as fast as you can and by any means necessary (pollution, sickness, disease, antibiotics, large swamps of toxic manure)? And if that is the case, would it be okay for me to eat a chicken or cow that was happily raised on Salatin's farm? I am also into not wasting things, so is it more wasteful than good to decline something containg meat when it would be thrown away anyway? I don't want to contribute to/support pollution or unethical practices, but I'm not really sure what the best solution is.I guess this course taught me to question everythingand allowed me to look at many different viewpoints surrounding heavy subjects. It also made me uncomfortable in some ways, as there are many possible ways of percieving, but it is debatable as to which one is "right". There are a number of different ways of seeing, and nothing is concrete.

Not New, but certainly improved.

At the start of this class I considered myself an odd mix of mediocre scientist with an even worse mix of philosopher/sociologist/artist. Whenever my science classes brought up moments in history that shifted the understanding of science towards our current state I was amazed and fascinated more by the historical perspective than the science itself. Early in class we discussed the dichotomy of these two spheres of thought, science and humanities, and I thought why do these things need to be exclusive modes of thought; In retrospect I fear this may have been more from ignorance about how the subjects as institutions have polarized themselves over time rather than some tacit insight of a keen observer. Courtesy of Latour, my initial views seem to have gained a bit of agency - I feel even more strongly that this dichotomy is constructed, fabricated, and an untrue manifestation of reality; the two arenas are inseparable, and to do so results in nothing more than a loss for our understanding of the real world... of reality. I'm excited by the increased sense that I am more capable to see the world with greater clarity. All things are interconnected in the web we've used so often to illustrate their relationships. However, these representations where always two-dimensional; I prefer to think of things from a more submersive perspective. Imagine being within the web, seeing the filaments extending from one junction to the next - do direction, no up, down, left or right - just the web, mind bogglingly complex and nearly unfathomable. Touching the filaments causes reverberations throughout the web and close observation elucidates the nature of the relationships. There's no bias regarding whether science or non-science is the cause or effect, which is more important, just the relationships and their meaning. It's an ideal state in my mind - I unfortunately cannot see all the filaments and certainly cannot discern their significance but I feel better capable of being able to do so now having been in this class... I feel as though I (my mind or me?) have been transformed. It's an experience that isn't easily forgotten. I'm older than most students, I feel comfortable saying I have more life experiences than the average student in this class and this is sincerely an experience that will remain with me far longer than most.

Thanks to all of you for your insight in the things we discussed in class - it made for a very rich experience.

Food, glorious food!

I really enjoyed the food section. I have worked with food for years, enjoy cooking, and was pretty shocked to see the dots of the food production process connected. I really knew very little about the involvement of corn in the manufacturing of SO MANY foods/things. Also the push towards, and away from GMOs is shocking. I remember someone's post (sorry for not remembering the author) comparing making a purchase to the license agreements we sign by checking the box before using new computer applications. That bit has stuck in my head ever since. By buying products, we are signing our agreement/acceptance of the entire process it took to get it to us. I had made this connection in terms of some processes, like sweat-shop made garments, but NEVER connected it to food until then. It connects to more than just food because we often stanp our approval on many things without really acknowledging the entire process or hybrid that connects to it. I had a lot of fun in this class. I wish more of my classes actually provoked thought...

I will always remember reading Sexing the Body in public...

I am sure some of you can relate to me in regards to the weird stares that were given in my direction when I whipped out my copy of Sexing the Body in public. Trying to catch up on the reading for the upcoming day, I would open my book before Chemistry or while on the campus connector to read for a few minutes when I had the time. Apparently, the rest of the University was unaware there there are indeed six genders, or possibly even a continuum of mixed genders. The private body on the front of the book, coupled with the interesting title sure did not invite people to sit in the open seat next to me on the campus connector... the funny thing is, is that this class has taught me why.

After completing this class, I feel that I have a deeper understanding of not understanding, if that makes any sense. Like Ben said in class on Thursday, "we have been taught to unthink that is ordinary, different, and not like the norm/accepted." The public's view of sex and gender is private, concrete, and two dimensional. It is considered taboo by the public mob to question, or even consider, the possibility of multiple sexes. For this reason, I received stares in public while reading Sexing the Body.

I will admit that I even felt embarrassed to read this book in public at times. Embarrassed from simply reading a book! This emotion connects to the deep roots of public opinion and what is deemed right in our own minds. In the concrete world, men have penises, women have vaginae, and people read about topics that matter, such as global warming (thanks Crichton).

I guess what I am trying to say is that this class has given me a new perspective on looking and evaluating issues in science and beyond. I am a pretty black and white thinker when it comes to academic related issues. I seek concrete and distinctive answers. I love math and chemistry because you can always put that (Cartesian) box around your answer to draw borders to separate it from the outside world: it is the one true answer. This class has taught me that there really is not such thing as a "true" answer. I have been "untaught" to think in a non concrete way. This is intriguing because, like Robin said in class, "We have to learn how to think like an idiot so that we can learn 'how they hell they could believe this bullshit?'" This thought erases the pretty boundaries that surround my nice, perfect answer.

Applying this to sexing the body and gender, we are left with uncertainty. The gender/sex line is a little unclear Uncertainty is a scary thought, so we live in a world where facts and solid evidence is a necessity. Yet, this class has taught me that there is always another seeing device possible in order to skew the "facts" a different direction. It is by this logic that I can conclude that there quite possibly are no facts (in society). Who knows what that babies sex is/was/is going to be? The facts sometimes get lost in the ideology.

This class has taught me an entirely new way to look at issues. I am more open to see diverse viewpoints from different perspectives. Thanks Robin and Ben for an interesting and intriguing class!

A big ass mess...

If there is one thing that I can honestly say I fully understood coming out of this class that changed me, it is that, as Jim said today, "the world is crazy." There is nothing clean about how things work. Much as we may try, purifying or depurifying, everything is a mess of knots of inter connectivity with so many other issues in major and minor ways. We may try as best as we can to obtain pure data by removing outside influence from say the environment, but the human element is always there. The is always a human bias simply because we are the one looking for the ideas and we are the ones creating them and using them.

Most, or at least most who spoke, seemed to find this mess of inter connectivity that depurifies everything bothersome. I will honestly say that I disagree. While it may be true that I certainly know more, about what I know and how it may have come to be what it is, or where it came from, this does not fundamentally change the way the world works. Have some foundations changed? Hell yes, some shifted left or right, up or down, and some were removed altogether. But society has not changed fundamentally and I can continue to live as I did before, except I know have a level of clarity, or blur as it may be, about what I am seeing and what the natural human interpretations of what I am seeing may be. Perhaps this discontent simply comes from the fact that none of us can think exactly as we did before, hence the shifting foundations. But we all should have seen this going in unless we became a wall to the information presented to us. When paradigms shifts, so do the foundations upon which they are built. I will be more thoughtful about what I learn as a result of this class, but it does not fundamentally change anything except which neurons might fire in my head (hello Pinkerton) or how my past experiences influence my train of thought (hello Lewontin), as it may be. The basis of knowledge that we "know" does not change all that dramatically. Liquid helium was discovered in a scientific race, and so was the composition of the moon. Obviously there were certain motivations to most, if not all, scientific discoveries in our Cartesian system of knowledge, but that just make them all the more interesting if I may say so myself, it gives them a humanity if you will. Facts still emerge and these facts can still be used, we just have a new, dirtier looking glass that presents a fuller picture of what we are seeing. As long as we remember how the knowledge was created, we can better interpret its meaning to the fullest, and I think this is exactly what the "we have forgotten so much" idea is getting at. I am very excited at the prospect of a muddled and messy scientific humanitarian world in which each of our realities is created upon, and how these realities coalesce into a conscious base of knowledge is all the better for it, given we can understand that not all realities are created equal, given the weight that the humanities, or the idea that human knowledge is created by and for humans, does indeed carry in the field of science, and how this plays into this interaction between the two and between these realities.

...now I understand why Latour had such difficulty giving words to this idea...

Awesome class Robin and Ben!

Blog posting #10 (due FRIDAY 5/7, 11:59 P.M. (comment due SATURDAY 5/8, 11:59 P.M.)): Final reflection/discussion

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

1) Choose one thing from this class (a text, an issue, a concept, an object, a theme, a case study, etc.) that you are taking away with you from this class -- something that still excites you, or bothers you, or intrigues you. Ideally, something that has changed, even in some small way, the way that you see and act in the world.

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

3) Reflect on what about it you are taking away from this class, and how it has (in whatever way) altered your thoughts about and actions in the world. If possible/appropriate, make reference to how the issue played out in class discussion, in the context of other topics/issues/themes/texts/concepts/cases we have been dealing with. If you recall what one or two of your colleagues had to say about it, bring that in too!

Addicts as Prisoners

I don't mean to copy Robin's post, but I'm really glad the prison poster and the addiction poster were on the same day of lecture, with the prison and the industrial complex following the addiction poster. The connection is inevitable in our culture as our means (the science) of treating addicts connects to this new era of sentencing them to slave labor (the industrial complex).

My first concept for my "intervention piece" failed due to lack of credible sources, and my second choice was privatized prisons. I changed again because I couldn't think of an actual intervention that would make a difference... not that my final project made any difference. I am very passionate about the prison system and am extremely against the privatization of the system.

Addicts are addicts because they can no longer control their behavior. It has become so much a part of their identity that they can no longer rationalize the entire decision making process. I have a bit of experience with both addiction and the prison system and feel that addicts need help and prisons are meant for horrible, potentially dangerous offenders. The industrial complex invites a misshapen structure to the “correctional” process. In reality, how much bad behavior is corrected in prison? It invites corporations to make private profit by keeping prisons full and productive. It continues the value of private profit over human life much like many corporate processes.
This system shapes policy and the way addicts are viewed in society. In the poster presentation about addicts, I heard “do they think these actually work? When viewing the “stay off drugs” clip from the add council. Are they marketing rehabilitation or that addicts are disgusting? I couldn’t tell, but our treatment of addicts hasn’t changed. They are sent to prison and in some states, forced to make products (like office furniture) that will be sold (to government agencies) to make money for large corporations.

What is God's Plan?

I would like to draw a connection between the super babies and birth control. One of the main themes in both of these projects is the idea of religion versus science. The question religion adresses is the idea that these two things are interfering with gods plan, and therefor shouldn't be allowed. This is a very tough issue because there isn't any clear cut way of arguing against a religous argument. The perspective religion comes from is incompadible with science, but as latour has shown us, outside forces do affect science, and religion is a great example of this. The other common thread for the two projects is the ethics of the good of an individual versus the good of society. In this case the individual being harmed is the potential baby. On the other side, society benifits by having either super babies that won't have an expensive disease, or society will have one less debate. The reason these topics are so contreversial is because the rights being trampled are that of an unborn child, a human being that can't argue for itself. To complicate matters further there is also the rights of the parents involved. By not allowing them any of these things their personal freedoms are also being limited. Science has given us this new dilema, but it doesn't have any way of adressing the ethics and religious debate that has insued.

Lingering question: When is enough, enough??

I would like to tie cosmetic surgery to animal testing. As the world continues to evolve, I feel as though "natural" is losing all reason and rhyme. There are always new ways to improve the looks of yourself, and a lot of ads we are exposed to each day are telling us how we can enhance our looks. This takes us back to the question we have been battling all semester- when is enough, enough?

Through animal testing, (according to the more than likely bias source) 94% is for cosmetic reasons, which is all for the purpose of changing how we humans appear. Cosmetic surgery is becoming the norm, and it soon will be an addiction (along the side of food, sex, and Internet).

Designer babies and sports enhancement can also be closely tied to animal testing and cosmetic surgery. All for are changing the physical make-up of humans original form. Through many articles and novels we have read this semester, the debate between culture and nature seems to be behind it all. What I mean by that is the natural state of how things are "suppose to be" is conflicting with our culture's advances, wants, and desires.

It is hard to know what will be next, or if natural will ever be back in style, but until then, the lingering question remains: when is enough, enough?

The White Man's Burden and Genetically Engineered Babies

Pear’s Soap ads, in addition to creating a distinction between clean, good smelling, white Christians, and “them”, also employed the phrase, “the white man’s burden”. Using this phrase from Rudyard Kipling’s Poem not only made imperialism a noble endeavor (i.e. washing the dirty salvages clean), but also a moral obligation, as we the “civilized” whites had an obligation to help the “uncivilized” savages better themselves. To what extent then, is genetic modification a noble endeavor, and is it or can it be a moral obligation? Of course, answering these questions relies heavily upon which moral and theoretic lens one sees this question through, but across the entire spectrum—from those for and against imperialism to those for and against genetic modification—these issues blur the lines between what is natural and artificial, deeply complicating the methods employed to measure what is noble and moral, while cementing a structure in place that makes the distinction between “us” and “them” possible only by virtue of the relationship between the two.

The parallels between “the white man’s burden” and genetically engineered babies run along the lines of noble endeavor and moral obligation. Again, whether or not the two are held as noble or moral depends largely on the institutions that develop and affect specific kinds of intellectual faculties. The structure however, that these practices have set in place, is a structure that makes the relationship between one who uses soap and one who does not, or the relationship between a genetically engineered baby and a baby that exists through conception, possible only by virtue of their relationship between one another. To be frank, one who stinks, only stinks in relation to one who smells good. A genetically modified baby is seen as unnatural or unmoral only in relation to a baby conceived naturally. What this does is complicated how we define what is defined as moral and noble because this social structure shapes a person’s self-understanding and interest. To put it another way, depending on where you fall in the structure, your conception of what is moral and noble and will shaped, internalized, and appear self-evident. It boils down to ways of seeing and ways of knowing, and often times these ways of seeing are predetermined for us.

The question then, is not whether or not “the white man’s burden” or genetically engineered babies are noble endeavors or moral obligations; it is instead a question how to understand, unpack, and separate oneself from a structure that has become so embedded into one’s culture as to literally shape one’s subjectivity and self-understanding. What this structure does do, is help to explain why there was a tension between those in the past that were for imperialism and the westernization of the undeveloped world and those who were not, and why the is a tension between those in favor of genetically developed babies and those are who not. For each position, there is a life experience and a structure in place to help shape a person’s self-understanding, and ultimately lead them to a position on a particular issue. Separating ourselves from the structure however, is not a matter of a choice; the structure is a part of us, it shapes how we think, act, and understand. Often times the advent of a new structure, or set of structural relationships, or way of seeing, is what exposes the current structural power at work. The ushering in of a new paradigm perhaps may help us to separate ourselves from our current structure, but it simply replaces the old with the new. Gauging whether or not something is noble and moral is contingent upon which angle we approach our measurement from, but the tools at out disposal for that measurement are contingent upon the structural power working on and through us. Conceptions of natural and artificial, noble and dishonorable, moral and immoral, exists only in relation to one another. They are not themselves natural. It is for that reason that these questions will continue to exist and complicate our understanding of understanding itself.

Addiction and Surgery

I decided to link up the presentation on addictions with the presentation on plastic surgeries. I think both are interesting because their presence in our society has sort of exploded in the last few years. As the group pointed out, the amount of things that people are now going to rehab for has gotten out of control: drugs and alcohol, sure, but sex and internet gaming? It seems less about that which we cannot control then that which we've simply chosen NOT to control. The line between simple irresponsible behavior and addiction seems to be moving further and further to accommodate our society's inability to control itself. And the plastic surgery group made it very clear that an insane amount of money is being spent each year on entirely optional surgeries, and the surgeries themselves are becoming even more efficient in order to get more surgeries in less time.

It seems like the abundance of what we now call “addicts” and people who are, well addicted, to plastic surgery, might be a sort of circulating reference. We've established through the semester that most people are at the very least uncomfortable with, if not afraid of, what they don't understand. In the past, addictions were simply thought of as immoral behavior. It was not entirely understood why some people were more apt to become addicted to negative things. Now, admittedly, some things are addictive, like drugs and alcohol, and rehabs for truly addictive substances are a necessary thing in our society. But once the black box around addiction is taken away (though arguably the genetic argument for addiction is still a black box), people become more willing to accept it's existence. Since people can place addiction as something out of their control, can categorize it as a genetic problem, then they are more comfortable with the idea. More and more people begin claiming their problems stem from addiction, and it starts a landslide effect.

I think plastic surgery is working the same way (arguably, the obscene amount of surgeries wouldn't be happening if society's acceptance of obsessive behaviors hadn't occurred first). Surgery used to be something that people were afraid of. A person cutting up their body, even when it was necessary, was not something the average person would enter into lightly. But now it has become common place. Since more and more celebrities, or wealthy people, or even the middle class, have begun getting face lifts, and breast enhancements, and liposuction, the trickle down effect occurs. It becomes typical, the black box is removed when the science improves, and what used to be a terrifying experience has become a moderately eventful weekend.

Human Nature: Addicted to Pushing Limits?

The two posters that I chose to discuss include the Hadron Collider poster and the Addiction poster. I would like to bring in our commonly used "Human Nature" that we tend to run into and have conflict with during class. I am not going to argue what constitutes Human Nature, instead I'd like to bring up the possibility that we (as part of our nature) are drawn/addicted to pushing the limits. The Hadron Collider illustrates this 'addiction' well.

We have established that we are all Cartesian, and that we believe everything can be figured out if we just put enough effort into what we want to accomplish. However, is part of being Cartesian also wanting to push the limits as far as they can go? Do we believe in limits? And does pushing these limits provide us with some sort of 'high' resulting in our addiction to pushing them further? I can see that we do have this constant urge to find out more, and in a way can see how we are addicted to finding out how far we can go. This can be linked to other events/things other than the Hadron Collider, (space exploration, designer babies, vaccinations, etc.)

Again, I am not trying to define what human nature is. I just think it's interesting that we continue to act in similar patterns, and to say it is an addiction may also be 'pushing it'.

The God Complex

I'd like to talk about Designer Babies and Large Hadron Collider. They are both dealing with the ever-growing advancement of science. In designer babies its biology, and in the collider its physics. The main thing i want to look at is how with both issues, one of the main reasonings against using this new advancement of science is the "playing God" question. First of all, what does that say about the nature of our science? and second, what does that say about how our society views religion?

In the Hadron Collider presentation, the group mentioned the "faith crisis", where the Catholic church will lose members if the so-called "god particle" will be discovered. Our science has grown so advanced that the possibility of the human being able to do what God can do is creeping closer and closer to a reality. Our ability to find out all of the secrets of the universe is pushing the idea of God out of our society. There are now basically two groupings of individuals: the scientific people and the religious fanatics. This is obviously a huge exaggeration, but its growing to be more and more like that.

Looking at this issue from the Designer Babies perspective, there is more of the "playing God" fear, where people feel like it is not it their place to choose what their child will look like, because we have always relied on God for that one. Again, God is becoming less necessary for our society, and becoming more of a hindrance. We used to pray to God to help our crops grow and make our children beautiful, and now all we have to do is throw down some fertilizer and pick out a few genes.

This idea has obviously been around since the enlightenment, but with the growth of science God keeps getting pushed further and further from the mainstream of society and its surprising how often this type of idea comes up. Not only did it show up in these two presentations, but also Birth Control and countless other things we experience every day. This is clearly and important issue in our world, and something we may have to pay attention to a bit closer.

Too Much, or Not Enough?

I'd like to tie together the posters that discussed soap and enhancements in sports and industry. I think both of them show how a culturally accepted norm can suddenly jump to the wrong side of the fence and be considered culturally unacceptable.

I'll start with soap. We've all heard the wonderful stories of people bathing once a year and the disgusting conditions in which some of our earliest surgeons worked in. The soap group gave us all sorts of great historical background on this and certainly made me appreciate the cleaner world in which we live now. In this case the scientific discovery of germs and all the bad things they can do led to a cultural revolution. Before we knew all the creepy things crawling on every surface could make us sick there weren't companies like Clorox and PineSol and the list goes on and on. Through the effects of semantic contagion this knowledge spread like wildfire. Advertisements for these products talked about the good American housewife using this cleaner, that detergent, and as time goes on we see advertisements depicting all the nasty germs crawling on a lego block as the unsuspecting toddler goes and grabs it, effectively spreading it to his friends and family. Unfortunately, science has begun to tell us we've taken things too far, that by using certain products too often we are building supergerms that are immune to all our defenses! But we're at a point now where this science is hard to accept based on our current cultural state of mind.

All of the various enhancements discussed in the next poster also follow a similar trend. There are obvious enhancements like taking steroids to break records and the like, but the thing I found most impressive were the day to day things that many average people have. Things like corrective lenses give someone who is potentially blind to the world the ability to see the world as clear as possible, if not more clearly. We obviously can't deny our fellow humans this sort of opportunity, but as their one example showed, excellent vision could give Tiger Woods the advantage he needs to start winning lots of PGA tournaments. Much like our friends with the soap, we see the effects of semantic contagion. One guy gets this done, tells his buddy who says "hey I could benefit from this" and the enhancement spreads. Suddenly you have dozens of baseball players on growth hormones and steroids. Drugs that take away our nerves so we can perform in a no stress environment. All of these scientific breakthroughs, while (mostly) noble in intentions, have certainly been taken too far, even to a greater extent than our love of soap. We now have to start using our cultural beliefs and the human side of our sciences to determine how much is enough? How much is too much?

The Ultimate in Artificial Selection

Incest and designer babies make a fantastic sci-fi/horror/comedy/social commentary theme for any sort of media. Both generate deep emotional objections from most of us regardless of whether the feelings are rooted in religion, philosophy, or ethical science. A question which begs the asking is if designer babies are a possibility, why can't kissing cousins make a product of pure geneology that won't have three heads? The stigmas for each of these subjects are tucked deep into human culture that makes it difficult to see why both can't be mutually acceptable. Humans have had a basic understanding of the source of birth defects for millenia but with an ample helping of concepts such as sin, suddenly new agency is developed as an opposition force to incest. When "real" science gets thrown in, the stigma intensifies - some say they already new this: God told them so, others advocate relearning the forgotten teachings of the ancients. With Genetically Modified Humans (GMH) a possibility the ethical debate continues based on the paradigms established by the previous lesson. Evolution is dependent on one key ingredient: variation. GMH allow for an increase in the variation needed for our species to continue it's temporal march (for better stewardship or destructive domination, depending on your point of view). As we've stated in class, it's a difficult thing to undo thousands of years of culture but sometimes one needs to ask whether our current viewpoints are the best in terms of the longview.

Animal Testing and Designer Babies

Well it may not come into the minds of some people when talking about the connections between animal testing and designer (Genetically modified) babies, I found some connections between these two topics that relate to the class as well. First, let me start out in saying that I support animal testing and designer babies, to some extent. Animal testing has given us the basis in which we can create designer babies. They go hand in hand, because without first learning how to try to genetically engineer animals, we would have no knowledge to carry over to the human population.

I am skeptical of some of the facts presented in the animal testing presentation, such as the fact that 94% of animal testing was used for cosmetics. This blind stat which is lacking of a credible source and citation, can easily skew the seeing device in which we view the animal testing subject. I think that sometimes in this class the science is lost to a wikipedia and google search of the first kind of information that we can find. And, as odd as it may sound, Michael Crichton was more credible in most cases because even he had footnotes (which as we all know were "real"). I guess the problem that I have is that in a science studies class we focus on both the science and the implications of that science, but we cannot have the latter if the former is illegitimate. I guess we could go into a conversation of what classifies an argument as legitimate, but that is a conversation for a whole different blog post. In this case, a simple credible citation would suffice.

These obligations aside, the connections between designer babies and animal testing are substantial. Some may argue that both are unethical, both are inhumane, and that both empower humans far beyond whomever or whatever created this universe intended. In reviewing terms that these two topics relate to, I found ideas in my notes that I had previously forgot about. The ideas of biological determinism-the fact that in today's society it is accepted that if there is something wrong with you it is in your genes (argued against by Lewontin)- and the ever popular theory of "black boxes."

First let's start with biological determinism. This concept is present in both subjects in that designer babies are the basis in which biological determinism can take root, and further advanced through the use of animal testing. Because designer babies are based almost solely on genetics, biological determinism is legitimized as the cure to diseases and makes a person come out how we want him/her/it to. Animal testing gives us the knowledge to do this, as in this case I am talking about research done on animals that involves genetic modification and alteration.

As for black boxes, it is the basis for animal testing! Here, lets apply this chemical...alter this gene...see what happens when... The very fact that we do not know what we are doing or the expected outcomes let's us peek inside the black boxes of our own inventions. With this comes the ethical dilemma of are black boxes best kept sealed for our own good, and do we have the right to open these boxes and use them for our growth (ie. designer babies)? To these questions, I have my opinions, but no answers. I believe that the ethics of science have allowed us to progress more than we ever imagined, and the implications of designer babies, genetic modification, and animal testing are advancing our technological capacity. With this comes the question, do we have the right to advance past what is natural? But like I said, I really do not have the answers to that.

Wheres the money gone?

Focusing on the LHC and the Humanities and Sciences (H&S) posters, I found it very interesting that one, the LHC poster was direct evidence of the H&S poster, and two the focus on legitimation from both posters. The H&S poster directly showed how science, as it is, has become THE means to legitimize something, and therefore is getting ~all the money! whereas even the humanities have turned to science to legitimize themselves in some way (see neurosciences), and how this has tipped the scales in some ways, namely in term of opportunities (science has lots and growing, humanities has a few and shrinking). Most people would see this as a problem, that this is entirely understandable considering the subject division, even in the name of our class. But in all honesty, as Mr. Latour has said, the two are not separate. Long have the humanities trailed the science thanks to uncle Rene, but the "gridding" of the sciences also changed the humanities, regarless of how noticeable is has been. Paraphrasing a line from my favorite game Mass Effect 2 (which got some of its content from Gilbert and Sullivan, mind you) 'Art is a reflection of advances in society and technology.' As technology changes, so does art, and if science's paradigm shifts, you bet your ass that the humanities will feel it, and change along with it, as a system of progression forward (or backward if you like, its all relative).

Abortions and the end of the world

Two posters that I was able to link together after some reflection were Birth Control, and The Large Hadron Collider. In both of these topics groups were discussed that were opposed to advancements in the science being spoken of. This group is primarily in both cases a religious group opposed to the tampering in areas related to god's work, although I must also mention the not-necessarily-religious pro-life group and pro-not-destroying-the-world group. The opposition these groups presents appears to be a paradigmatic difference; these people don't want science in these areas, and live in a reality full of spirits and demons. Reality for these groups is their ideologies, which they must defend because the opportunity to live in Fairy Land is too good to pass up.
Another topic brought up in both presentations was black boxes. In reference to this post, I will discuss voluntary black boxes. The Catholic opposition discussed for the Hadron Collider referred to the fact that they are fully aware of what these discoveries may mean, but they don't want to know because it may deligitmate the idea of god for some people. For birth control, we have condemnation directed towards abortionative birth control. Here we have a pro-choice group that wants the concept of the beginning of life to remain a mystery, because if we do not have life, we can't destroy it. Revealing the innards of this black box could make the idea of birth control more morally reprehensible, or less, depending on what our definition of life is.

Superbabies

I thought that the presentations on designer babies and incest were very connected. Both dealt with reproduction and concentrated on focusing the highest quality of offspring. Although the science behind developing genetically engineered babies is relatively new, the ideas have been around for a long time. In the incest presentation, they talked about keeping the "good" or "royal" blood in the family through cousin marriage, and I think that the designer babies group also discussed a "rating system" that was once used to pair certain people with alike people. They also talked about how you can be assured, through science, that your baby will indeed retain "good" traits. Compatibility and fitness to reproduce between two individuals are dealt with in these topics.
Along withe the good, there is also the bad. Designer babies and incest are both focused on keeping the bad stuff out whether it be impure blood or hereditary diseases. Basically the idea behind these two concepts seems to be to pass on the desirables, weed out the negatives, and breed to produce the highest quality of offspring possible.

Blog Post #9 (Due Sunday 02 May 11:59 PM): '2 X 2' responses to the Poster Projects

Let's look back at the Poster Presentations, link a couple together in some interesting ways and use some of the terms / concepts from our work to do it. We're calling this a '2 X 2' project: TWO posters, TWO concepts or terms, and as interestingly dense a linking as you can get.

I'm currently focused on the spatially-opposed 'Addictions' and 'Prisons' projects from Thursday--really intimately related in being so filled with ideology that the science is totally eclipsed and colonized. I heard Puritanism / esceticism everywhere—as we reject, fear and punish our pleasure-seeking bodies. Saw bunches of 'black boxes' sealed up because we really seem to want to impose ideology regardless of the facts. 'Crime is genetic. 'Crime is immoral and willful.' 'Crime is sinful.' 'Drunks are selfish.' 'Addicts are sick.' Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.

Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed after we read your posts.

Small World

I was just involved in a conversation inside a local bar in West St. Paul, where I was extremely happy to encounter someone more passionate about food than myself. This place was a dive... in fact, I was surprised to find anyone who could still communicate. I recommended Michael Pollan and he suggested I look at this site:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com

He wrote it down on a cocktail napkin and I wrote my suggestions on another... The spread of information at its finest.

It seems a bit overdramatic, but important to say the least.

This is what I would have done for my "Intervention Piece" if I had the time....

Sink or Swim?

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=3400&output_type=rss

I decided to venture out and look for my own article on global warming and when I found one titled “Certainty of Catastrophic Global Warming is a Hoax” in Capitalism Magazine of all places, I couldn’t resist. When we discuss ideas getting legs and the global warming “crisis” becoming culturally recognized, we also need to see the opponents and their own campaign to legitimate their own claim.

This author attempts to legitimate his point in several ways. First he claims that the science that would support human activity contributing to global warming was flawed from the beginning. He calls it “bad science” and stresses that more recent research discredits the claims made by Al Gore and the extreme environmentalists. He creates a sort of “us vs. them” argument by saying the delegation fighting the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was composed of eight republicans and that there were no democrats present. The third way the author stresses his argument is my favorite part- economics.

“It is the claim of certainty that is a hoax. It's a dangerous one, too, since using global-warming theory as the basis for extreme policy mandates could plunge the world into a long-term recession or even a depression.” Pretty scary stuff. There is another passage asking how legislation could be so damaging economically when there is no science to back it up?

Maybe the urgency of the economic crisis overwhelms the urgency of global climate change to readers of Capitalism Magazine.

Manbearpig

I'm extremely disappointed South Park was mentioned in the prompt, being a big fan of the show I was planning on doing something tying in South Park and climate change for at least one blog post.

So I'm going to use South Park anyways.

Robin suggests that South Park has made us all "knowing cynics." While I certainly agree with that, to an extent, I feel their impact is much greater. Just like when you go back and watch a children's movie and notice subtle "adult" references for the first time, South Park succeeds at entertainment at multiple levels. There is still enough simple and straight forward humor in the series to attract a crowd that is largely uninterested in the underlying satire or criticism of whatever the current subject happens to be. A perfect example of this is the episode "ManBearPig," (click that for a link to the video, i.e. my website of choice) featuring the great Al Gore. While the premise of a manbearpig is humorous on its own, the episode holds double meanings when manbearpig becomes a metaphor for global warming (an intended metaphor, although I was not aware of this until someone pointed it out). It works mostly because it is presented in more digestable pieces. No, of course the argument is not that ridiculous, and no, Al Gore doesn't think he can fly (I hope), but for me at least, the episode instigated the asking of more questions. My interest was piqued on the topic of global warming. This type of presentation can be extremely effective with the right audience. Raise there interest in a subject, and given how technologically literate we are, Wikipedia can be a mouse click or cell phone text away. Steering the general public towards their own revelations instead of bashing them over their collective head with it may be the most effective tool available to proponents of any hot issue, yet it is a strategy rarely used (properly, at least).

Authority of Experts

I looked at the article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The name of the website simultaneously shows that the people who created it care about issues yet are rational, intelligent people with authority. It reminds me of the whole "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" thing, but because they're scientists, and not a bunch of menopausal women, they have authority. This authority is the main tool used throughout their argument against Michael Crichton.

Authority, as seen in this article, is based on one's expertise in the field. They shrug Crichton off and say that anyone can look into climate literature and find out more about global warming, but it takes a climate expert to see the reality of "the full complexity of the climate system". In other words, Crichton is an idiot who found some data that he didn't understand and ran with it.

This idea of authority is taken further in the next point when they list 4 different very impressive-sounding groups of experts that all agree on the same exact thing. If all of these experts have looked at all this data multiple times and all came up with the exact same conclusion out of the myriads of possibilities out there, how can you doubt that its true? Its The National Academy of Sciences and The American Geophysical Union against some random guy who can write entertaining fiction. Who are you going to believe?

The rest of the article goes on with a similar trend, taking all the massive claims that Crichton makes and turning them into a simple mistake w using facts and expert opinion to explain the reality. All this is done in a relaxed manner while subtly reducing Crichton's authority by referring to all of his claims as being made by "characters" and not people. This automatically reduces anything that Crichton says to fiction and heightens the authority of the scientists.

Looking at the New Republic article, I found it strangely odd that they (editor/writer) failed to even note that this is indeed an entertaining book. Instead of conceding that Crichton has an interest in global warming, recreational at least and political at best, and that he is indeed even remotely good as an author, the article seems to completely bash his sense of character. He is a man, so the gender roles seem to fit pretty well (I didn't really notice them until the women in class noted it), and suit him. He doesn't presume to be a leading expert in climate science but rather someone who is a bit worried about the current state of things, such as the inconsistencies applied between Global Warming and other possible crisis (lax use of explicitly important terminology for example), and is using his preferred profession/method of communication to show this. The article also seems to portray him as some maniacal man out for power, a proverbial hitler, based on his devils advocate stance in State of Fear, using comments that seem to be hugely out of context to further this idea...

"In a 1995 interview with Time magazine, Crichton hinted at an agenda beyond dazzling people with roller-coaster plots and astounding Hollywood special effects. Somewhat ostentatiously citing Jean Cocteau's The Difficulty of Being, Crichton explained that the French writer "said what I've always believed about myself. He didn't care about being noticed for his style. He only wanted to be noticed for his ideas. And even better for the influence of the ideas."

Of course he did... it generates buzz, and all authors want recognition for their work. Even conceding that there is the slightest possibility that Crichton has some world domination scheme cooking behind the scenes, surely books aren't the worst that could happen...

http://www.tnr.com/article/michael-crichtons-scariest-creation

the science of the ficiton

I looked at the RealClimate blog, reading their post called “Michael Chriton's State of Confusion.” One thing I found immediately interesting was that the tag line for the site is “climate science from climate scientists.” Now I myself fall on the global warming exists side of the whole debate, and I knew just from the title of the article that the writers would be giving Chriton a little negative criticism, but in the interest of fairness, I tried to keep a keen eye for cues on where these writers would be coming from, and how their biases would show through. So with that in mind, I thought the tag line was pretty revealing. This site would be giving me science from people who knew what they were talking about, but not only that, Chriton is instantly placed in the non-scientist group. That's fair, he's not a climate scientist, but it seemed relevant that the writers of the blog definitely wanted their readers to read the post with that in mind.

Going from there, the post itself starts by saying that it doesn't normally discuss “out-and-out fiction” like Chriton's novel. This too is very telling because not only does it reinforce that State of Fear is not a credible source of information, it legitimates the site further. It suggests that the kinds of things these writers are used to discussing are straight academic works, purely facts, but that they are departing from their typical briefly because Chriton's book has made an impact. In some ways, the comment legitimates this work of plain “fiction” because the writers deem it worth the same amount of attention as actual science, but I don't think that's what the intention of that comment was.

The rest of the article continues on the same trend. There are quite a few snarky comments about the fast-paced, action adventure nature of the book mixed in amongst straight facts. They tell us where Chriton lead us wrong, then they tell us what the better interpretation of those particular facts should be. They start in on the science by saying that it's for the “actors and lawyers” out there, but what they're really saying is, just like Chriton's characters, we the readers of this blog most likely have no idea what the science really is, and since Chriton doesn't inform us, they will. We are the ignorant, they the enlightened. I can't really disagree with this, I truly know nothing about the many seeming complexities of what determines whether or not global warming is something we should worry about, but the way they present the information is still interesting. Do I know anything about the topic? No. But they imply throughout the post that Chriton does not know the right questions to ask of the science, which we wouldn't know when reading the book because we are not scientists, but the writers of the blog DO know the right questions. The problem of course is that, I have no idea if THEY are right either, because, again, not a scientist. I'm more inclined to trust the authors of the site though, because they do a good job of convincing me that they are about the facts, unlike Chriton, who's about “car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do.”

Rhetoric and Science

THE GUARDIAN, (guardian.co.uk) recent put out an article with the heading, “Climate scientist are losing ground against deniers’ disinformation”. Simply put, this article examines the ways in which the Tea Party movement and its supporters, described as, “sophisticated echo chamber of right-wing shock jocks, [and] culture-war keyboard commandos”, are all working together to push the skepticism on climate change. On the left, climate campaigners: educated scientists, intergovernmental and non-governmental policy makers, U.N. officials, and amongst others, the President of the United States; On the (far) right, climate skeptics: soccer-moms, Glenn Beck (though some sources say he now believes in the science behind global warming), Sarah Palin, Fox News, and much of the blogging community. Needless to say, these diametrically opposed viewpoints have met face-to-face on more than one occasion, yielding results that illustrate the ways in which “scientific fact” does not always trump the rhetorical force of the “mob”. There are a few points this article raises that I would like to tease out, as they speak to much of the work we’ve be doing here. It must be noted however, that this article was written by Joss Garman, a climate campaigner and described by the Sunday Times as, “ champion of the green movement”.

Garman credits much the Tea Party’s political clout to the fact that they have, “power without responsibility”. As a result, they can afford to throw as much mud as they want and see what sticks because they don’t face the scrutiny as those holding incumbent establishment positions (Garman). In this way, the climate change controversy, once largely resolved, is live once again, “despite”, Garman states, “the rock solid nature of the core facts”. We know the danger in relying on “facts” that fail to get the “mob” to go along with them. Rhetoric and fact are deeply connected, and the recent disconnect between climate change scientists, and the Tea Party and its supporters, speak directly to the ways in which a fact is not a fact until Latour’s “fourth loop”, the loop of, “public representation” (Pandora’s Hope, 105), works along side the science—not in opposition to it.

To Garman’s credit, he seems to understand this point, and provides us with an account of this fourth loop at work in the real world. He writes:

The scientific community, with honorable exceptions, continues to handle the issues badly because they haven’t apologized for their mistakes and come out all gun blazing on the robustness of the climate science. But ultimately, as John Kerry learned, and as Obama mastered during his campaign, an altogether different kind of response is required anyway—one that speaks less in the language of “parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide” and more to people’s value and everyday concerns.

The get the science to become a fact, one must deploy rhetoric that not only speaks to climate scientists, but also to the mob. “Science” Latour reminds us, “is a human activity” and is deeply connected to rhetoric.

Garman closes his article with, “Climate change is real and human-caused, the case for tackling it is just common sense”. Unfortunately, it’s just not that simple. Common sense doesn’t go very far in the face of right wing activist. It’s subjective, what’s common to me, may not be common to you. Bottom line is this: if we cannot get people to go along with climate science, then there is no science at all. Rhetoric and fact cannot, in my view, be separated. To bring the science to life, to make it work, we need to get people to believe in it.

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/climate-science-ipcc-sceptics

Glenn Beck writes a very inconvenient book

The article (or more of a video) that I chose is on youtube and can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

I decided to look up more own article for this blog post to get an even more diversified opinion of the global warming crisis/scam. When performing a youtube search for global warming, I can across Glen Beck's segment on CNN where he talks about Global Warming and his release of his new book titled, "An Inconvenient Book." In this segment, which he actually calls "An Inconvenient Segment," beck attacks Gore and his fellow global warming crisis-callers and their ideas. The very fact that he is mocking Gore right off the bat with the names of his produced media goes right to the point of trying to de-legitimatize Gore and his production. Furthermore, he calls "Gore believers" psycho and tries to completely falsify everything that is said in his documentary. He throws out facts such as "weather related deaths are down 95% since 1920." Beck only puts a plug in for his book briefly, before he goes to a "legitimate source" to disprove global warming, the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman. Coleman stars out with a quote outline his outright view on global warming: "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled, and highly offended by it. Global Warming IS A SCAM."

This attempted legitimization using "reputable" sources is very similar to every argument that advocates for global warming use. The two sides, although they may never admit it, argue their viewpoint in symmetrical ways:

1. The argument begins with the statement of a found fact. Something about temperature, ice melting/freezing, human health...whatever grabs the listeners attention.
2. The argument then proceeds to attempt to delegitimize the opposing argument. In my example, this is done by explaining that the "Gore psychos" fabricate the data and do not look at the facts. Furthermore, scientists are only looking for information that is in support for global warming. Due to the political nature of the issues, the scientists are afraid to speak out and present the "true facts."
3. Usually this will segue into an "expert testimonial" in favor of the supported side. This political maneuver appeals to the uneducated public that can be easily persuaded by “striking facts.” Because there facts come from an expert, they carry more weight, and when they are read on an “exclusive report,” the authority of the expert skyrockets. This social/ethopolitcal move allows each side to make there case.

Unfortunately, each side to the global warming argument conducts their reports in this way. The (seeming) unclarity of the issue at hand has left debate of each side to be misleading. Both sides only report the figures and data that benefit the argument they support. In addition, the data is often simplified and does not accurately represent all the figures that can be found.

Something I found very interesting in this article was John Coleman's statement that the scientists that say global warming is an issue "have an agenda." This relates to Crichten's quote where hes says that everyone has an agenda, except for him. It seems as if the antagonists to global warming propose that it is a fabrication of data in order to make money and earn grants.

No matter which side you look from, you will find data that can be disproved by the other side. Global warming is an issue that will be debated for many years to come, and I do not think that scientists can come out with data that fully prove that it is or is not happening.

Intentional or Accidental Fame?

I looked at the article Michael Crichton's Scariest Creation, which I found not to be either for or against global warming, but rather uncovering the shocking influence Crichton's novel had on government policy. Crichton's work was created because it was his passion. I feel that he wrote due to his interest in science fiction, rather than with the hopes of changing the world. From the article, Crichton gives off a very humble and nonchalant vibe. When asked about his meeting with president Bush his reply was along the lines of "When the president asks to meet with you, you go." I truly do believe that Crichton's passion for the text was not created to create controversy within our government. If anything he helped assist the public with the idea of having the other side to the story and enabling them to think, research, and create an opinion solely.

The Shock Effect

I looked at the site with the article “Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion”. In this article a concerned scientist takes Crichton’s “facts” in State of Fear and elaborates on them more.

He tells the whole story behind the information presented in State of Fear. He does not deny the facts but demonstrates how Crichton did not provide all of the information that goes along with the statements and data he presents. The Author admits to some uncertainty about the exact outcomes of global warming (e.g. earth isn’t warming uniformly, sea levels difficult to measure, etc.) but stresses that these details do not deny the negative consequences of pollution/burning fossil fuels.

We tend to remember the shocking aspects of one’s argument. The author of this particular article takes Crichton’s shocking aspects and brings to light the other components that go along with the shock value. For example, it is true that some parts of the world are not heating up, but the whole earth will not warm/cool uniformly. There are two sides to each story. As we talked about in class, we tend to only see the more flashy sides of data and not the whole picture. This is how our ideas are formed regarding global warming, or any other controversial topic. The whole picture does not demand our attention like the shocking statistics/data do.

Follow the Leader

I decided to read the article on "Michael Crichton's Scariest Creation". It is very obvious from the very first sentence of this article that the author is a fan of Crichton's work and supports his ideas wholeheartedly. According to the author Crichton is "capable of discovering the hidden truth about global warming that has eluded the world's leading scientists". There are several things I find interesting about this phrase. First is the use of the word truth. Apparently Crichton did not interpret the information presented to him the same as many people previously had (at least the more outspoken of the bunch) and because of this he has "discovered the hidden truth". This implies that the previous truth is now obsolete, incorrect, and not to be used anymore, and, to use a Stephen Colbert-ism, less truthy. This relates to everything we have talked about in the class so far and our quest to decide what truth is and how it becomes truth. The second aspect of the previous phrase that interests me is that the author implies that scientists, people who have years of training in the subject they study, weren't unable to come to the interpretation that a man who spent a few years doing some amateur research in a subject that he cannot be considered an expert in (I believe anyway...). Instead of immediately taking this argument down the path of corruption and bias, the author simply seems to suggest a lack of knowledge or ability on the part of the scientist.
Later in the article the idea that scientists might have certain interpretations based on who provides their funding is brought into play, but I think the overwhelming logic being employed by the author to prove Crichton is correct is simply that President Bush liked it. The fact that he has "captivated Washington" with a novel that he declares as fiction shows how persuadable some people are. Those who wanted proof that global warming was not an issue now have documents and interpretations to use in their arguments. And poof! we have two sides to our story now.
While I do not doubt that Crichton did his homework while writing the novel, I do not think that this much emphasis can be placed on it during political debates. State of Fear is so appealing because it appears to be without bias. Crichton didn't get paid to say something specific, just to write the book. We would all like to think that he is correct because he is apparently outside of our very political scientific community, but the average Joe is once again jumping on the bandwagon 'because he says so, and he sounds like he knows what he's talking about'. People need to learn to form their own opinions on these things, not just follow the leader each time the popular opinion changes.

Ban the Water

While this article isn't necessarily about global warming or climate change, it is a good example of how people can be persuaded to believe anything, especially if it is presented in a way that is convincing enough. By using the big, scientific sounding name "dihydrogen monoxide", and listing of things that it is able to do (all of which are true), it causes a sense of fear and uneasiness. I feel that this is because it is so unknown, and many people are unsure of what to do with it. Creating fear and gaining support of banning this chemical is all in the presentation, which can be applied to pretty much anything in the world (global warming, mini donuts, magnets etc). When you point out all of the negative aspects of water and give it a big, scary name, it does seem like a terrible thing, even though life on earth can't survive without it.

Crichton isn't giving us the whole picture

The argument I examined is made by the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the links provided on the Moodle. While the majority of the members are scientists, I couldn't help but think of the idiot celebrities and lawyers in State of Fear when I saw the subheading that said the organization consisted of concerned citizens and scientists. Still, the number of scientists in this organization is greater than the 0 scientists that wrote State of Fear, which lends authority to their argument. The cases they make case-by-case refute different arguments made by Crichton, providing a counter-argument and evidence. In the majority of cases, it seems Crichton has cherry-picked his evidence, showing only data that supports his case. It should be pointed out that while most of the graphs in the book show trends that do not show global warming, most of them are in the chapter about lawyers preparing for a defense attorney refuting global warming. It only makes sense that a defense case would use this data (Lie), but it is dishonest for Crichton to pass this data off as the truth. A specific argument I looked at was their answer to Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? In this case the argument becomes less scientific and more of an emotional appeal. They use fear of a worse future, but not in a catastrophic way. They are honest in stating that this is a problem for future generations, and that we are obligated to preserve the Earth for them. This is the classic "Think of the children" argument. You wouldn't hurt children, would you?

Blog Posting #8 (Due Sunday 4/11, 11:59 P.M.): Michael Crichton ('global warming') on the Web--the public rhetoric and 'semantic contagion' of science

On the table in this part of our work is how 'minds' get formed and changed. How ideas get legs. How beliefs can go viral. How common sense becomes so common. Robin will argue ('Beyond...reason') that it's seldom a matter of facts alone.

In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.

Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.

"Science Catfight"

I watched this over my morning cereal yesterday morning and thought it was pretty funny, and related to global warming!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/269929/april-06-2010/science-catfight---joe-bastardi-vs--brenda-ekwurzel

Whatever... just pay me

This book seems to be this class in a nutshell. A vague attempt to understand what is being done scientificly and why. Who does it effect? who pays for it? who describes it to the world? Why is it important to us? how could it be better and better for whom? Who is hididng behind the science? SO MANY QUESTIONS!!!! We are running out of time and I think I'm finally starting to catch on- there are few answers to any of these questions. As I inevitably fall further and further behind in this class, I think I'm understanding a theme... the connection between it ALL, and the drive for MONEY that usually influences it ALL! Wish I had more. sorry group.

knowledge is power

For the most part, I'm enjoying reading State of Fear, even if the near death action adventure scenes are starting to get redundant. I liked Chrichton's messages at the end, especially the one on P. 718 (third one down), that talks about the respect he has for people who can change their views with more information/ better understanding of a topic, rather than stubbornly clinging to opinions for 30 years. I would agree that advances in technology, scientific breakthroughs, and time can give us a better understanding of certain things as well as change the ways we see and operate. An example of this is the events that led to banning lead in gasoline(the black box theory- we know something works but don't exactly know how and what the consequences might be).

In the same vein, a part of the book so far that I thought was interesting is the 'Sequoia' chapter (pp.500-509), in which the the actor Ted Bradley talks about global warming. This character is just reciting the lines that he has been given, and has not bothered to research or check out the facts himself. He trusts his source, and "NERF would not have told him to say anything that was untrue (p.519)". Chrichton does a good job of making this character seem ignorant and unaware, especially when you compare Ted with the brainy tough girl character of Jennifer.

Predicting the Future

I'm not very far into the book yet but from what I have read so far, I think it is interesting how he is using these little stories of people who don't seem to be connected to each other (as of yet for where I am in the book). Although the language is quite simple which makes it easy but not very challenging to read which I think is good and bad. The issues that are brought up I think are good because it seems to react to and bring up I think quite well the view of both sides of the global warming argument. There is one thing that I found quite interesting that I had never heard before which was said in the book and that was "Global warming is the theory-". I have never heard of global warming being described as a theory before. So far all in all I think that it is a good book and offers an interesting view on global warming. I was reading the authors notes in the back and came across a passage that I really did not agree with because I think it is kind of ridiculous. "Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better." I think that that is ridiculous. Nothing like that can be predicted accurately. Jeez, according to the weatherman this weekend was supposed to be rainy and in the 50s but it ended up being sunny and in the 60s. This is not stuff that you can predict accurately because you can't predict the future.

Everybody has an Agenda

“Everybody has an agenda. Except me.” These are Michael Crichton’s words found in the Author’s Message section of his book, State of Fear. I think this quote speaks to much of what we’ve been learning about thus far in Science in the Humanities. While this book is entirely fictional, it’s message is analogous to how our society operates. Everybody has an agenda. A fact’s funding, political association, religions connection etc…work independently or together to bring us understanding and internalization. When we use his words as an analytic optic, we may begin to read his book and see our world differently. As for my reading experience, I found myself giving particular weight to the science of Geology, as I am currently taking a geology course at our university. I began to approach geologic claims with blind confidence, and this form of reading brings with it potential danger. Of course Crichton’s work is a work of fiction; that said I believe it is important to pay attention to how we interpret, and what devices we use narrow and tighten that interpretation.

As far as seeing devices go, I believe examining things with the assumption that, “everybody has an agenda”, is itself, a seeing device; until we learn to see this way, we don’t. Take for example, the very beginning of the book, when introduces Charles Ling and Allan Peterson. Since I myself am currently taking an introduction to Geology course at our University, I found myself, when Crichton speaks of Geology, giving particular weight to the geologic picture he paints. When Crichton talks about the Cavitation generators, oceanic simulators etc, I took them to function exactly as he described. This may be due to my exposure to Geology, but it took away from my understanding that everybody has an agenda. It is easy to forget and, at times disregard. What we take as facts may be dangerous. And we must reminder ourselves that science and politics are married in a way that complicates our view of the world. This idea is rooted in Crichton’s book and he masterfully evolves this concept throughout his work.

Separating Fact and Really Convincing Fiction

I have to be perfectly honest. I have not begun reading the book yet. However, due to a lighter work load this week I had allotted the majority of my time tomorrow to hashing out the required sections. I'll try and make some insightful thoughts based on my knowledge of books of this nature.

While I have never read a book by Michael Critchon, I know that he has a way of writing similar to other popular authors of our time. Dan Brown, Clive Cussler, and the like. Any time I read a book by one of these authors I feel myself drawn into the story completely, to a point where the lines of fiction and reality begin to blur. This is almost an uncomfortable place to be. Every part of me wants to believe that this story is completely true, something you would read about in an autobiography or something. I remember desperately wanting to reject reality and take the story of Christianity presented in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code as the true way to interpret the religion I was raised in. Alas...

I think the reason that I find myself susceptible to believing everything I read is because of the way facts are presented in these stories. The authors have clearly done their research, and many of them have some first hand experience in whatever they tend to write about. My scientific mind can't find any flaws in the arguments used or the rhetoric thrown about, so why not believe it? Of course, the inability to find flaws is due to my lack of expertise in any of the subject matter I find in such a novel.

It will be interesting to see how I handle this book. If even the theatrical adaptation to Critchon's Jurrasic Park had me convinced this sort of science was definitely attainable, I can only imagine how convincing a brick of a novel like State of Fear will be. I'll definitely have to keep reminding myself "it's just a story" and hope to keep an open mind about all of it.

It's all in the wording

One thing I find interesting about reading a book like State of Fear is the whole concept of discussing something based and founded in real world issues under the guise of fiction. Granted, we know Chriton is doing extensive research and trying to hunt for the truth, but he's given himself a beautiful little gift in that this is a novel we are reading, not a research article. He may try to stay truthful, try to expose something that a pure scientific article never could, and he may be successful, but whether he is or not is less important than whether he can entertain an audience. He has the luxury of being able to say that anything which isn't accurate, any character's statements that are too extreme or too inflammatory are not intended to be fact, but was merely his effort to create interesting characters and a compelling plot. While people may be compelled to talk about the science behind the book, he always has the cushion of being able to say that it is a work of fiction.

Chriton acknowledges the important of wording on pg 55 when Drake is trying to coerce Einarsson into framing his opening paragraph in such a way that it would back up global warming. He has Drake screaming that by wording his findings a certain way, he would be completely twisting the truth. Yet the first words written by Chriton in the novel are “This is a work of fiction,” seemingly admitting that it is not about facts, but he follows it with the words “references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in the footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real.” So here we are, preparing ourselves to read a novel that, as Chriton insists, is based on real data, when the much more important statement is the one saying we are reading a piece of fiction. Fiction is, of course, all about wording. The only thing that distinguishes an author from some dumbass writing a fantasy novel in his basement that only his mother will ever pretend to read is the way he puts together words. Chriton, arguably, is a genius at this.

We know when we approach it that it's a piece of fiction, but because of the way Chriton phrases things, we find ourselves taking him and his opinion on global warming seriously. He continually emphasizes that there is no single, right perspective on the future of global warming, that it is all merely a guess, and that he would never presume to be an authority on the issue. But the manner with which he treats the scientists that would be considered authorities makes us believe they are hardly trustworthy, saying on page 715 that reading environmental texts is “itself a hazardous undertaking.” Yet he is not a scientist, and he is not trying to convince anyone that his is the only opinion. He asserts over and over, both blatantly and through humor, that he is only one point of view, one guess. He writes on 721 that “Everybody has an agenda. Except me,” which we of course read automatically as sarcasm. We trust Chriton because he cleverly words his fairly single-minded point of view. He acknowledges the manipulation of wording, and so we feel as though he is not trying to manipulate us. But, of course, he is. That's the beauty of it.

Definition of Science

To lead off my post, I have to comment on a statement made in the back of the book under author notes. The statement appear on page 717, first full bullet-point: After explaining that we will shift away from fossil fuels in the next century Crichton states "so far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century." There are many things wrong with this statement, the the thing that I take issue with is Crichton's lack of acknowledgment that technological advancement leads to greater depletion of resources. Today's technology is drastically different then the definition 200 years ago. That being said, no body knows what future technological advancement will have in store for the world, but I can only assume that it will come directly or indirectly from fossil fuels in some way.

Another problem that I have is concerning the ideas of global warming. I am going to take a different approach than the approach that I think most are going to take. I am going to agree with Crichton (for the moment). Here is why:

Science is a process that seeks to understand the unknown. It accomplishes this by forming theories and developing hypotheses to test those theories. By definition, science can never prove something right, only prove a hypothesis wrong. Science can only provide support in support of a hypothesis. Science also works to disprove evidence that is supposedly supported. On pages 124-125, when Evans is talking about global warming being an established fact, he goes on to say, "Maybe there is something wrong with the data." According to the professors of my biology class, Evans is not conducting science. He is looking for information in search of an answer that we wants to find. A proper scientist would never search for data with a intention of finding something. Why would the experiment be conducted if a scientist was only going to skew the data to either be insignificant or a "major breakthough?"

In this sense, I do not think that Evans is properly looking at the paradigm of global warming in the correct way. A paradigm shift is supposed to evolve through the discovery or new facts or invention of new theory. Evans is looking at the global warming data (seeing device) in only one way. He should analyze it in another, different way, but even then he would be going against science to look for an answer he wants to find.

Another interesting concept in this book is the the use of seeing devices. Without the graphs, numbers, equations, and measurements about global warming, our observations are useless. Without these seeing devices, global warming would not even exist. I think that Crichton places a good amount of light on the dependency of humans and scientists on seeing devices, and how the discovery of new seeing devices leads to the discovery of new "facts."

With regard to the easy of read of this book, Crichton frequently uses foreshadowing to show whats next to come. For example the boyfriend/girlfriend quarrel that ultimately leads to the physicist's death in the beginning of the novel appears again on page 145 with the appearance of a very similar fight between two similar characters. The attractive women comes on to Evans, similar to the previous example, but Sarah "saves him." This leads me to thing that these two will appear again in a similar fashion later in the story.