"It must have taken courage for him to meet with one of those creatures that threatened, in his view, the whole establishment of science, one of those people...which -- at least so he had been told -- was another threat to science in a country, America, where scientific inquiry had never had a completely secure foothold" (Latour 2).
That sign up ahead: 'you are entering the 'science wars.'
When that psychologist asked Latour if he 'believes in reality,' he wasn't just curious. He felt threatened. He was convinced that Latour and his fellow 'science students' are questioning some of his most basic values -- about what's right, true, and just in the world.
Latour clearly believes he was wrong -- and takes us on a long and winding journey through the last 3000 years of Western philosophy to explain why. Why a study of a medical phenomenon that ends with 'I have no clear idea,' as Elliot does, can be just as valid as one where 'the results were clearcut,' as in Brang (same phenomenon, vastly different 'stories.') Why there doesn't need to be a chasm with 'science' on one side and 'culture' on the other. But it'll take much more than 22 pages to upend the 'science wars'. With President Trump's take-down of the EPA's climate-change page, and ending federal funding for environmental research, we have a war with consequences. Untold millions of dollars, livelihoods, and (in some sense) lives are on the line. And it's not only that one psychologist in Brazil who worries that 'science studies' may undermine some of his most basic values, including his understanding of 'reality' itself.
Enter Steven Pinker. Our reading, an eight-page lecture based on his bestselling book The Blank Slate, runs headlong into the heart of the 'science wars.' Pinker is writing about genes and human nature, not medicine and amputations, but the fight is on the same terms. He sets out to force us to question some of these basic moral and ethical values — about the 'reality' of truth and justice and facts. Robin finds Pinker magically able to provoke him (in spite of how brilliant he is), and make him question his values. Now let's see how he works on you.
And / or, if you want to watch rather than read, or if you love those RSA-illustrated talks, nobody makes a more elegant, entertaining and single-minded case for genetic (read: evolutionary) determinism than Denis Dutton's TED talk on the nature of our conception of 'beauty.' Another partisan in the 'science wars, Dutton and Pinker (before Dutton's untimely death) had a sort of theoretical / political bromance. He's immensely appealing, but the view of humanity he's offering is at least troubling.
1) Choose one moment in Pinker's "The Blank Slate" (as short as a phrase, as long as a paragraph, or as dispersed as an idea or claim) OR from Dutton's lecture that either CONFIRMS or CONTRADICTS one of your deeply-held values about what's 'really' right, true, and/or just in the world.
2) Explain why this moment is so strong and charged for you — either in affirmation or confrontation. What is the source of these values for you, in your own life? What makes them so important? What is it about what Pinker or Dutton are saying, and how they're saying it, that is speaking to those values so much?
3) Finally, take a step back and theorize / reflect on the feelings you've described in parts 1 and 2. In what ways are you, and Pinker / Dutton, acting out the 'science wars'? What are the stakes? Why do you care -- and why should we, who are reading your words? Want to work across both? Sure—but don't go nuts. Feel free to bring in Latour, Elliot and/or Brang, and especially our 'Keyword' log if they'll help you do this theorizing/reflecting. (But if they won't, don't!)
And just to be clear: though this is a 'class' (can't avoid that) we're not asking you to write 'the paper I have to write.' Keep it real. Structure it however you want. Use our cases (legs, log splitters, science writing, pinpricks, transpersons, and 'experts,' Michael and Devon's call for writing that follows scientific order. Or use your own life experiences.
Meta Rule: 'don't bore your friends'--and thus have some fun.
And just to be clear: though this is a 'class' (can't avoid that) we're not asking you to write 'the paper I have to write.' Keep it real. Structure it however you want. Use our cases (legs, log splitters, science writing, pinpricks, transpersons, and 'experts,' Michael and Devon's call for writing that follows scientific order. Or use your own life experiences.
Meta Rule: 'don't bore your friends'--and thus have some fun.
As always: the post is due on Saturday night at 11:59 P.M. Then, in the next 24 hours, you'll want to take some time to read other people's posts (ideally everyone else's) and write a thoughtful comment on at least one of them, by Sunday night at 11:59 P.M. Your comment should somehow further the discussion -- add onto a point you agree with, or take issue with a point you disagree with, etc.
And of course, if you get stuck, always feel free to contact us.
No comments:
Post a Comment