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.

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.

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.