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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)