This week was more of a resting week. The reading was some what simple.
This week reading disscussed all the player in public invovle ment in science/ it also was a group piece meaning that it was written by several authors which kinda through me for a loop.
When your making the public intreseted in science as marres said last week we should focus on the frames that actor use to moblize their concern and issues and thier attachment to things. This 5 paged piece was a refernece to marres initialling that THere are several public representation for things in science. but what we fail to do is look at the status of that representaion. and the involved possibilty and professibly. The peice went on with some concern about public trust in science. When dealing with a controversey the circlating reference deals with web which makes that become th primary vehical to all access in science. for instance most people pay attention to what is said in Journals (sciencetific Journals). When it comes to decision making with the public intrest we have to build trust rather than framing or persuade. In order for science to communicate well with the public science instutions should be taught about social and political apsects of the media. as well as relationship buliding with Journalist and editiors. (p.516) Some of the media responibilties for science would be to weave out the mainstream infromation of science. Meaning the corporations, and the ad's that tend to sell scince and the will need to be tradional with science giving the avialiable information from credible sources.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
week 6 may4 to may 6
Once again I'm apologizing for my delayed blogs... although I kept up with the readings in class it was difficult for me to continue writing on here about them.
The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to study of public Involvement in controversy/ Noortje Marres
This reading to me was insane. Very intense the writer was; very one sided.
This piece talks about how public interactions with science changes science, and how science with public interactions is not favored. by the government having decision making because there is little input from humans.
I personally did not like this reading, because the author was so one sided in their belief it made it sound like a child's paper. Yes this was a good thing because they stirred up the controversy with La tour. But it also upset me the way the author criticized his work his piece and his beliefs. I learned from reading this paper that everyone is truly intiled to their own opinion.
The author starts this paper off with talking about la tour, Callon, and a couple of other authors and argues out of their favor. For instance in earlier pieces we have read on la tour and how he believes most scientist use framing as the works for public interactions with science. I truly accepted this belief and thought because he explained that it was always a bad thing. So he addressed the pros and con of his theories. For that I think he's addressed every area of his theory and should be taking into consideration as truth.
However when I begin to read this piece we discuss the public interactions of humans and How it was a decision made based on the government. - Lippmann's then we began to view this controversy between Lippmann and Dewey. Dewey, believed that science revolves around the public and change as the public controls it. I personally don't believe this. But Lippmann talks about the public being actors in the piece not as institutions as La tour does, but as actors stating that everyone has to play a role in science. This author goes on to address how controversy are played in science and what they play special attention to. For example it looks at the relations between human and non human actors and elements. This was mentioned in our earlier paper the week prior to this reading with Jane Bennett, so with this author stating that La tours is incorrect in his thinking, but I think this author is incorrect. because the reference is circulating from Jane Bennett getting her information from La tour. This is the blow flow of Science that La tour talks about.
This author criqutely end this piece with addressing that when accounting for public involvement in politic we should not only focus on the frames that actors mobilize to enact their concern with issues, but also their attachments to things and people. (p.775) This statement was probably one of the best through out the whole piece. It stating that we shouldn't only look at the things that the scientist are addressing with their concern or issues but their attachment to the claims their stating and the people they associate with. For example with Darwinism just to through that out there the scientist that address the importance in it should we look back at the scientist last works and see who there talking to in order to make their claims. I actually did that in this discussion when I mentioned Jane Bennett reciting La tours work.
The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to study of public Involvement in controversy/ Noortje Marres
This reading to me was insane. Very intense the writer was; very one sided.
This piece talks about how public interactions with science changes science, and how science with public interactions is not favored. by the government having decision making because there is little input from humans.
I personally did not like this reading, because the author was so one sided in their belief it made it sound like a child's paper. Yes this was a good thing because they stirred up the controversy with La tour. But it also upset me the way the author criticized his work his piece and his beliefs. I learned from reading this paper that everyone is truly intiled to their own opinion.
The author starts this paper off with talking about la tour, Callon, and a couple of other authors and argues out of their favor. For instance in earlier pieces we have read on la tour and how he believes most scientist use framing as the works for public interactions with science. I truly accepted this belief and thought because he explained that it was always a bad thing. So he addressed the pros and con of his theories. For that I think he's addressed every area of his theory and should be taking into consideration as truth.
However when I begin to read this piece we discuss the public interactions of humans and How it was a decision made based on the government. - Lippmann's then we began to view this controversy between Lippmann and Dewey. Dewey, believed that science revolves around the public and change as the public controls it. I personally don't believe this. But Lippmann talks about the public being actors in the piece not as institutions as La tour does, but as actors stating that everyone has to play a role in science. This author goes on to address how controversy are played in science and what they play special attention to. For example it looks at the relations between human and non human actors and elements. This was mentioned in our earlier paper the week prior to this reading with Jane Bennett, so with this author stating that La tours is incorrect in his thinking, but I think this author is incorrect. because the reference is circulating from Jane Bennett getting her information from La tour. This is the blow flow of Science that La tour talks about.
This author criqutely end this piece with addressing that when accounting for public involvement in politic we should not only focus on the frames that actors mobilize to enact their concern with issues, but also their attachments to things and people. (p.775) This statement was probably one of the best through out the whole piece. It stating that we shouldn't only look at the things that the scientist are addressing with their concern or issues but their attachment to the claims their stating and the people they associate with. For example with Darwinism just to through that out there the scientist that address the importance in it should we look back at the scientist last works and see who there talking to in order to make their claims. I actually did that in this discussion when I mentioned Jane Bennett reciting La tours work.
Still week of 4/25- 4/27 Sciecne blood flow!
Science of blood flow
Latuors piece on Science is blood flow made completely perfect since to me. I seem to be getting a better understanding of the readings of them not being as difficult as they normally would. Latour discuss Norwegians trying to keep the heavy water out of the Germana's hands. This piece discusses how things hang together and how science is truly blood flow. Allowing things to flow together as we try to figure out on piece of the puzzle.
This article discusses neutrons and science at the heart of the controversy of this paper. But what I really took into what Latour metaphors as to why science is blood flow. He gives numerous examples throughout this paper as to why it is. On page 93 he compares science to neutrons and he explains how neutrons can be found as a concrete definition in the encyclopedia. However he goes on to say that this can not be found for science because science can be out dated and the out dated information can be discernible. So in other words, not editable. because of this he wants us (The readers) to think of science as the neurons and the neuron to liberate x neurons. made up of an ensemble of different situations, people, and peoples judgement... namely as the modifier. This paragraph really stuck out to me.
I'm not sure if I'm doing a great Job at explaining this but let try again to the best of my ability as to why this paragraph is so important. 1) latour is almost making reference to Jane Bernette's Non- human theory; stating that science is not structured but constructed by the humans opinions and beliefs. Almost framing. which was in week 1's reading. This paragraphs says that science can not be defined in a encyclopedia....Because it simply cannot. the neurons he discusses just gives us a simple example (concrete) as to why we should hold on to our beliefs in science. he explains later on through out the paper that all these things just fall together working as blood flow to become one. as I tried to state earlier. the Neutron liberates x Neutron...closing out a single neutron, that does not hold to a truth....he says (P 93) a Very different part made up of an assemble of situations, people and judgements. It clearly lets you know that science is always changing. Which is what he's trying to get across here.
Latour goes on to discuss in later pages (P105) the public representations of science. i loved How he started this off. He says that even if every group were trained and disciplined to think of science with a wide support...then there would still need to be a great deal of work done. Because they would still be as lost and clueless as the world is today. So it really wouldn't make any difference as to whether or not the social groups were taught to believe a certain way. because all that pre-conceived ideas they have would still be carried over. It almost like trying to prevent stereotypes... which is almost impossible to do here right. He Goes on to explain that the reason science is categorized or stereotype is because of the "Science warriors." They tell us what science is. but with the wrong metaphors. There just trying to defend science, but perhaps in the wrong way.
Latours ends his argument by allowing us to make our own decision on what we believe. But before that he tells the readers that we need to dumb things down in order to really play in the science of blood flows definition. Because social context has made the modern world so closed minded it's almost impossible for anyone to understand the enclueated invents of thesis blood flow. He explains to us that we need to be parallel with the human and non human artifacts of science. Meaning that with our ideas today and of last weeks the need to stand parallel, not one on a different spectrum. so as the work is done, the process and the actually study of science and things in science. Should be parallel. In order to change the views on society's understanding that's the only way it's going to bring forth change. however this is not an easy process and may take years because so many ideas in society is working against this because this way of thinking in science is hanging in the air up steam, and has not been brought downstream.
Latuors piece on Science is blood flow made completely perfect since to me. I seem to be getting a better understanding of the readings of them not being as difficult as they normally would. Latour discuss Norwegians trying to keep the heavy water out of the Germana's hands. This piece discusses how things hang together and how science is truly blood flow. Allowing things to flow together as we try to figure out on piece of the puzzle.
This article discusses neutrons and science at the heart of the controversy of this paper. But what I really took into what Latour metaphors as to why science is blood flow. He gives numerous examples throughout this paper as to why it is. On page 93 he compares science to neutrons and he explains how neutrons can be found as a concrete definition in the encyclopedia. However he goes on to say that this can not be found for science because science can be out dated and the out dated information can be discernible. So in other words, not editable. because of this he wants us (The readers) to think of science as the neurons and the neuron to liberate x neurons. made up of an ensemble of different situations, people, and peoples judgement... namely as the modifier. This paragraph really stuck out to me.
I'm not sure if I'm doing a great Job at explaining this but let try again to the best of my ability as to why this paragraph is so important. 1) latour is almost making reference to Jane Bernette's Non- human theory; stating that science is not structured but constructed by the humans opinions and beliefs. Almost framing. which was in week 1's reading. This paragraphs says that science can not be defined in a encyclopedia....Because it simply cannot. the neurons he discusses just gives us a simple example (concrete) as to why we should hold on to our beliefs in science. he explains later on through out the paper that all these things just fall together working as blood flow to become one. as I tried to state earlier. the Neutron liberates x Neutron...closing out a single neutron, that does not hold to a truth....he says (P 93) a Very different part made up of an assemble of situations, people and judgements. It clearly lets you know that science is always changing. Which is what he's trying to get across here.
Latour goes on to discuss in later pages (P105) the public representations of science. i loved How he started this off. He says that even if every group were trained and disciplined to think of science with a wide support...then there would still need to be a great deal of work done. Because they would still be as lost and clueless as the world is today. So it really wouldn't make any difference as to whether or not the social groups were taught to believe a certain way. because all that pre-conceived ideas they have would still be carried over. It almost like trying to prevent stereotypes... which is almost impossible to do here right. He Goes on to explain that the reason science is categorized or stereotype is because of the "Science warriors." They tell us what science is. but with the wrong metaphors. There just trying to defend science, but perhaps in the wrong way.
Latours ends his argument by allowing us to make our own decision on what we believe. But before that he tells the readers that we need to dumb things down in order to really play in the science of blood flows definition. Because social context has made the modern world so closed minded it's almost impossible for anyone to understand the enclueated invents of thesis blood flow. He explains to us that we need to be parallel with the human and non human artifacts of science. Meaning that with our ideas today and of last weeks the need to stand parallel, not one on a different spectrum. so as the work is done, the process and the actually study of science and things in science. Should be parallel. In order to change the views on society's understanding that's the only way it's going to bring forth change. however this is not an easy process and may take years because so many ideas in society is working against this because this way of thinking in science is hanging in the air up steam, and has not been brought downstream.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Readings week 4/25- 4/27
So I have a confession to make. I have been really far behind in my writings. I up until today did not have the confidence to write my responses to this class. I have been keeping up with my reading though none the less, I've also had several family issues that I have addressed to Flowers attention. So I do want to take this time an apologize to any classmates that I have let down. I know in order to even sometime fulfill blog post we do need feed backs from other students so in lack to comply I do apologize.
With that said let me start with talking about the readings from weeks ago Jane Bennett and Latours science is blood flow.
To start with Jane Bennett she talks about the human and non human references of thing when making claims. This reading to me was a hard read it wasn't simple you had to definitely keep your Patience through out the reading. She address that we have human exceptionalism and the feedback loops in non human operative systems. What i got from this part of the article is that non human materializes consist of Humans not putting a hierarchy on things. This reading was a little confusing to me as I mentioned earlier.
Some of the things I got out of it was the human and non human assemblage's. That humans are mostly look at in science and there work But i think what she is stating here is that its not just the work of humans that should be looked at. It more of the claim of the process of things that tends to flow together. Jane Bennett also stats latuor in her readings as a source which brings me to a point from one of the past readings which is circulating references, That is what she is doing here.
She talks about how the earth is broken and should be seen as a blackout. The whole thing was pretty much losing sight to me. As i read further the more confused I became.
With that said let me start with talking about the readings from weeks ago Jane Bennett and Latours science is blood flow.
To start with Jane Bennett she talks about the human and non human references of thing when making claims. This reading to me was a hard read it wasn't simple you had to definitely keep your Patience through out the reading. She address that we have human exceptionalism and the feedback loops in non human operative systems. What i got from this part of the article is that non human materializes consist of Humans not putting a hierarchy on things. This reading was a little confusing to me as I mentioned earlier.
Some of the things I got out of it was the human and non human assemblage's. That humans are mostly look at in science and there work But i think what she is stating here is that its not just the work of humans that should be looked at. It more of the claim of the process of things that tends to flow together. Jane Bennett also stats latuor in her readings as a source which brings me to a point from one of the past readings which is circulating references, That is what she is doing here.
She talks about how the earth is broken and should be seen as a blackout. The whole thing was pretty much losing sight to me. As i read further the more confused I became.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Circulating Reference; Chapter 2 4/20- 4/22
In my accusations on this weeks reading I captured a lot on how we need to exam science and the makings of science. It is known that anything can be science, and when we are in a lab most people, such as myself should expand there brains and realize that anything can be a laboratory. Science is very crucial and critical; definitely not easy and everything must BE CALCULATED, from the dates to the times when you are making examinations on a experiment. it has surprised me that we all learn the same way but we do pick up things in our brains differently. I will analyze this further in our discussion. I seen what the writer is doing is mimic vocabulary of other philosophers to make a stick able claim. This was said in La tours argument the week before in order to make a abstract or a "downstream" claim things must be repeatedly said from older scientist work.
In addition to reference making all the work is a step by step process that can be subsidize to later scientific techniques and critiques to be concrete representations that cannot be pushed away. In Pandora's hope he talks about how the scientist divide the forest up into several parts in order to observe the vegation of the earths soil or crust if you will. Things in a lab work become remember or visible as color and color into data and data into text. This is what makes Lab work more abstract.
As for my understanding this type of reading was pretty much the narrow down of human understanding and controversy's. what I truly seen out of this reading is all the work it takes to make lab work a downstream accusation. The forest of Boa Vista's field work resembles the process of reference work done in a research paper that make abstract downstream claims to hold truth to science work. for example lets take the ideal of Climate change; this was first name Global warming but with more standard truths held to down streams accusations, scientist were able to change its names. accusations; such as Population deaths, atmosphere cancer, and Global heating. All these counter arguments to the name of Global warming standard changed it's name since it held truth, since it was thing that made and argument so much truth came to make it so we couldn't argue about them in the science world.
As far as humans learning science every transformation counts, by transformations I mean steps. because each human learns the same but understands differently. For instance on page 71. we talk about the triangle diagram 2.21 He states the stage by stage process that gains representation by reduction. so by reduction of out side material we regain truth. What I'm trying to say is that lets take the ideas of negative and positives, by taking out all the ways why someone should be negative we regain truth that positive is the best way to be but to make a human understand this is a step by step process seeing as everyone learns differently. You can't just give them one reason and say this is why positive is better than negative. then upstream you have to deal with the controversy if positive is better then negative. this is why field work becomes text and is so important. Circulation of reference is needed through out politics and any work of the world. even in sports circulation of references is used.
In addition to reference making all the work is a step by step process that can be subsidize to later scientific techniques and critiques to be concrete representations that cannot be pushed away. In Pandora's hope he talks about how the scientist divide the forest up into several parts in order to observe the vegation of the earths soil or crust if you will. Things in a lab work become remember or visible as color and color into data and data into text. This is what makes Lab work more abstract.
As for my understanding this type of reading was pretty much the narrow down of human understanding and controversy's. what I truly seen out of this reading is all the work it takes to make lab work a downstream accusation. The forest of Boa Vista's field work resembles the process of reference work done in a research paper that make abstract downstream claims to hold truth to science work. for example lets take the ideal of Climate change; this was first name Global warming but with more standard truths held to down streams accusations, scientist were able to change its names. accusations; such as Population deaths, atmosphere cancer, and Global heating. All these counter arguments to the name of Global warming standard changed it's name since it held truth, since it was thing that made and argument so much truth came to make it so we couldn't argue about them in the science world.
As far as humans learning science every transformation counts, by transformations I mean steps. because each human learns the same but understands differently. For instance on page 71. we talk about the triangle diagram 2.21 He states the stage by stage process that gains representation by reduction. so by reduction of out side material we regain truth. What I'm trying to say is that lets take the ideas of negative and positives, by taking out all the ways why someone should be negative we regain truth that positive is the best way to be but to make a human understand this is a step by step process seeing as everyone learns differently. You can't just give them one reason and say this is why positive is better than negative. then upstream you have to deal with the controversy if positive is better then negative. this is why field work becomes text and is so important. Circulation of reference is needed through out politics and any work of the world. even in sports circulation of references is used.
Monday, April 19, 2010
4/8 through 4/13 response Sci 361
My understanding of La tours liatures was that there was several ways in science to make a controversy. For instance theories are made by claims and claims come from past tense articles or proven history that has held together. The only way to prove something is true and fair is to realize the unstable- ness in science and take that to another level. A deeper level if you will. Also la tour talks about how to follow a controversy and what to do when you are following on; i.e. look at the key actors and remember who is saying what. It's difficult and more complex then what is thought out to be.
Also you have to realize that others are always going to question your claim and look at it as whether is it going to hold true. Keep in mind in the laboratory that others will use your claim to make NEW claims. You want your claim to be concert and downstream--to things that matter. It needs to hold together as confirmed ground work.
Which brings me to my initial question and the question of the public, to say I'm speaking for them is open in its self and would be an opened concern. However; La tours talks about how scientist become who the are or how claims become standard like the idea of Darwinism as an example. It has been shown that it's because these claims are popular, but what makes them popular to the science eye. it's that controversy are settled p.98 or people just settle for the initial claim when they have no more material to argue against the claim, and/or everyone who there auguring against can't be convinced. So the initial controversy that their auguring against the just go along with- hence the controversy settles. Scientist do battle with one another also with politics claims, they will write in third person so we can't phantom what is justified by their text which is what makes science popular and just.
Also you have to realize that others are always going to question your claim and look at it as whether is it going to hold true. Keep in mind in the laboratory that others will use your claim to make NEW claims. You want your claim to be concert and downstream--to things that matter. It needs to hold together as confirmed ground work.
Which brings me to my initial question and the question of the public, to say I'm speaking for them is open in its self and would be an opened concern. However; La tours talks about how scientist become who the are or how claims become standard like the idea of Darwinism as an example. It has been shown that it's because these claims are popular, but what makes them popular to the science eye. it's that controversy are settled p.98 or people just settle for the initial claim when they have no more material to argue against the claim, and/or everyone who there auguring against can't be convinced. So the initial controversy that their auguring against the just go along with- hence the controversy settles. Scientist do battle with one another also with politics claims, they will write in third person so we can't phantom what is justified by their text which is what makes science popular and just.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Sci 361
So ,the first few readings in class has blew my mind in various ways. I always knew that in science there was uncertainty and risk taken in things, But not on the structerdized ways of learning, I always seen everything as having a set and stone planned out history; towards what things should be like, when it comes to learning theories of science, but when the question is about what were learning... is it even true? Where do we go from there? of course we've seen things been bought and sold...but science? does it really come at a price of knoweledge?
The Article about 3 waves stands out a lot. (even though they all do this one really caught my attention) it seem to have open ended ideals about society and what they do to portray science. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, but to me it showed the public awareness, as too what happens in science behind the scenes or so. Harry Collins makes a comment how in order to understand science we must change our thinking. But how do we do this? How does he expect people to change there thinking about science with out the ideal of framing, which was talked about in Nibsets piece...which tended to be a little bit more confined on his claims about what we a a society should do about science. One thing I did like about Collins article is that he attacked the scientist as individuals for making their claims and experiments and answers be right. He lets scientist become aware of the fact that they need to stop looking at what is always wrong about science and look at what is right- to me this is meaning that scientists need to stop trying to make there own theories and sell there own products and look at the justice for science alone. I believe that Collins approach is agreeable in every aspect.
Furthermore; there is the ideal of framing that was present by Nibset as I mentioned earlier. I think this ideal is true, yes it does harm science in every way possible, but how would we make the public aware of science otherwise? In the society we live in today people aren't going to look up the concept of stem cell research... No. Were living in a society where they want instant clarification, The will get there information from the news/ or some other TV Chanel since television is our easiest information tool today, in my opinion. Framing does leave room for political findings in science but were not going to esacape that anytime soon. My questions are how are we going to make science an obeservation for the public, if they don't even know what their looking at, or not intreseted to look at it, for that matter. How do we get people out of there comfort zone and beliefes or pre-concieved ideals? Or how do we talk environmentalist to cope with another's world view? To me this is deeper then science and and world views e actually need to pay attention to how social scientist are speaking on science.
The Article about 3 waves stands out a lot. (even though they all do this one really caught my attention) it seem to have open ended ideals about society and what they do to portray science. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, but to me it showed the public awareness, as too what happens in science behind the scenes or so. Harry Collins makes a comment how in order to understand science we must change our thinking. But how do we do this? How does he expect people to change there thinking about science with out the ideal of framing, which was talked about in Nibsets piece...which tended to be a little bit more confined on his claims about what we a a society should do about science. One thing I did like about Collins article is that he attacked the scientist as individuals for making their claims and experiments and answers be right. He lets scientist become aware of the fact that they need to stop looking at what is always wrong about science and look at what is right- to me this is meaning that scientists need to stop trying to make there own theories and sell there own products and look at the justice for science alone. I believe that Collins approach is agreeable in every aspect.
Furthermore; there is the ideal of framing that was present by Nibset as I mentioned earlier. I think this ideal is true, yes it does harm science in every way possible, but how would we make the public aware of science otherwise? In the society we live in today people aren't going to look up the concept of stem cell research... No. Were living in a society where they want instant clarification, The will get there information from the news/ or some other TV Chanel since television is our easiest information tool today, in my opinion. Framing does leave room for political findings in science but were not going to esacape that anytime soon. My questions are how are we going to make science an obeservation for the public, if they don't even know what their looking at, or not intreseted to look at it, for that matter. How do we get people out of there comfort zone and beliefes or pre-concieved ideals? Or how do we talk environmentalist to cope with another's world view? To me this is deeper then science and and world views e actually need to pay attention to how social scientist are speaking on science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)