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.