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 initial response to the sorts of material we are reading can indeed be a concern that scientific credibility is undermined. That concern is what has prompted Collins (with his colleague Robert Evans) to write a book on scientific expertise and so warn us, in the short article we read, against an overbearing skepticism. You suggest that Collins is criticizing scientists for this skepticism; however, his target is not scientists but some of the public and some of his academic colleagues. Finally, I see that you are more than a little skeptical that the public willl pay attention to science EVEN IF IT"S FRAMED for them. We'll see by the end of the term whether there are ways to encourage public interest and action in the doings of scientists. Perhaps you will see more positive possibilities in a few weeks' time.
ReplyDelete