Multiple truths, multiple realities

Reflecting on the semester as a student in this science and culture course I can easily say I am leaving with a new critical approach to learning. As someone who is usually pretty open and articulate among peers in my own field of study, it was refreshing to come in to a classroom in which I had little to no knowledge on the topics being discussed, and to simply sit back and allow several voices, often contradicting ones, shape my learning experience. I guess a regret I have now is that I didn't voice my opinions more often, and as I came to learn they were just as valid as any one else's voice. However, the importance of language and rhetoric were also brought to my attention in this class which may have to do with the disconnect I felt some times. The more adept we are at understanding all languages, the greater of an ability we can have in shaping reality, or at least making sense of it. I echo Wainok's sentiments about doubt, in that I've also learned that it's important to question and probe at information that can be easily written off as truth. Whether it has to do with GMOs, climate change, or sexual desire... it's always important to gain multiple perspective in order for the truth to illuminated. For example, my group did our intervention project on GMOs with the overall thesis that "GMOs are bad". But after the poster presentations my view of GMOs shifted as I was made to see that most foods are genetically modified in some way, and that the acronym GMO has really formed a bad rep because of the negative connotations surrounding it. Again, language shaping our understanding of what is true or untrue, right or wrong, is also important in understanding these issues. Even Jeehye's personal perspectives were enough to alter my own; in terms of GMOs I remember her saying that in Korea you don't question whether or not a food is genetically modified or not, that you should just be happy and thankful for being fed. I've thought a lot about what Val was saying, that cultural studies seems to muddy science studies, and I don't know if I necessarily agree, but again it is that constant existing dichotomy that ultimately shatters all of our hope and understanding in reality... when the two are unable to come together and form truth, but instead butt heads and create multiple false truths. And yet, it seems that because there are so many people, so many ideologies and beliefs floating around, that it's necessary for these multiple truths to exist. Despite their "realness", people do tend to cling to certain forms of rhetoric and language that provide them with protection and safety. At the end of the day we all just want to feel like we belong somewhere, even if it is among the crazy anti-environmentalists.

Question Everything; HPV; and Overheard at CSCL 3331

I cannot simply choose one thing to take away from this course, as though my attendance and blog post submittals were erratic, I truly learned a lot and not only enjoyed the curriculum, but the minds around me. It has been a rare experience in my college life to delve into subjects that actually a) impact me and b) intrigue me, but CSCL 3331 has done just that. Whether it was learning about people whacking off their limbs, GMOs, The Omnivore's Dilemma, State of Fear, or sexuality and so-called sexual taboos, the subject matter was never boring. I have decided to stop listing things we learned, because we were all there (physically or "spiritually"), so the question remains: what is the one thing (the MAIN one thing) that I will be taking away from this class? I could easily simply state quotes that have come out of Robin and Ben's mouths, but I think the key thing I will take away is to always is to always question what you read, scientific "evidence," facts, statistics, and "the only way out."

Much of this semester has been about hearing about truly obscene arenas of knowledge. I never thought I would be learning about Mad Cow Disease or about the Value of Statistical Life in a CSCL class, but I did, and it was important because it made me think. Even my own love and appreciation of Greenpeace had moments where my opinion slightly wavered, as even I do not know how they come up with the money for scientific studies as their revenue does not seem enough for how much they do.

However, since this is my last blog post, (and honestly I have not been keeping up with my blog posts) I would like to discuss something a bit off topic, but still, extremely relevant. If the poster projects or background reports, or hell, even intervention projects were individual, I would have done mine on HPV. HPV is short for human papillomavirus, and it is something that 80 percent of all individuals (that means 8 out of 10 of you guys) will be exposed to over the course of their lifetimes. Then again, who knows what the actual statistic is, because according to this class we have come to learn that most stats are biased and bullshit. However, I will be listing off stats over the course of this post...so "just accept it" or do your own research.

Now before I freak everyone out, I would like to say that studies have shown that most people clear the virus (it is still controversial as to whether it simply lies dormant or your body rids the virus) in 2 years. In fact as many as 90 percent do. Also, the vast majority of people will never have symptoms or health issues pertaining to the virus, which is why pap smears are so important for ladies and why most people never know they have it and pass it on to partners.

HPV is passed by skin to skin contact, that means that condoms are not foolproof, and most doctors will not give you a statistic to how useful they are at preventing transmission of the virus. However, if you dig a bit online they typically state that condoms are about 70 percent effective. You can get HPV vaginally (or on your man junk--come on, let's have humor, we're just talking STDs), anally, and orally. Many doctors insist it's just a way of life and a "marker of sexual experiences." Even if you have been diagnosed, most doctors claim that there is no need to disclose your HPV status to future partners as "if they have had more than one partner, they likely already have been exposed." I personally find this to be problematic and have ethical/moral concerns with this advice.

There are over 100 strains of HPV which are divided into two groups. There are low risk types (those that may cause warts--and guys I'm not talking about those scary images your sex ed teacher showed you in 10th grade to make you become a saint/priest/40 year old virgin) and high risk types (those that have been linked to causing cervical cancer, as well as anal and head and neck cancers). The shitty thing about HPV is you are not tested for it during a STD test, so what ever you guys and gals think about your STD/STI status, could easily be wrong. Another shitty thing is that unless you have symptoms of low risk HPV, there is not a test that is widely used for men (they claim there isn't a test at all, but who knows). When women receive pap smears (girls get yours annually, and don't be an idiot) they check for abnormal cells, if the cells are abnormal you will get a colposcopy and possible biopsies to assess the degree of abnormal cell changes, which are characterized as HSIL or LSIL and CIN. There is CIN1 (mild cervical dysplasia), CIN2 (moderate), and CIN3 (severe or carcinoma in-situ--the last stage before cervical cancer). There is also an HPV test and they can test to find out what strain you have to better assess your situation, as some never cause cancer or are less likely or are slower to progress. If you have CIN1, it is likely doctors will recommend to watch and wait; CIN2 or CIN3 they will likely recommend a LEEP or cervical conization. There are also natural remedies which are unknown to most in the medical world, which I will discuss later.

So why in the world am I bringing up STDs in what is supposed to be a happy and reflective piece? Because I have HPV. Unfortunately, many of you do too, though you do not know it. The problem is that most people never talk about their HPV status and because of that it is still a taboo subject. I think that is a problem, as people should be more aware about what is going on with their bodies. I am a very healthy person. People in the class probably perceive me to be some sort of naive liberal hippie with no care about modern medicine or those around me since I am unvaccinated (you can get the Gardasil shot against HPV, but it only protects against four of the most common strains) and outspoken in regards to my vegan ways. Despite my healthy daily regimen, I am one of the few people who has had issues with HPV, which I found out about last semester at my first pap (GET YOUR PAPS LADIES!) right after my 21st birthday. My initial colpo/biopsies came back with CIN1 and focal CIN3 and then my colop/biopsies in March of this year came back CIN2 and CIN3. My gyno stressed the importance of getting a LEEP, and I was scared, so I considered it. This is a video of a LEEP procedure, and it is GRAPHIC. It is also why I did not want to get one. However it was a moment of truth in which I had to decide whether or not I would be a hypocrite and turn my back on natural medicine the one time I needed it, or whether I would put faith in my beliefs. I chose the latter and for the last month I have been seeing a naturopath twice weekly for escharotic treatments and have been on a strict dietary and supplement regimen. This is an awesome blog about a girl who went the natural route: Bueller's Kitchen.

I would go into more detail about my protocol, and if anyone wants to ask or is in a similar situation, I would be more than happy to tell people more about my experience with trying to reverse my cervical dysplasia and HPV naturally. I will say this, my naturopath has been practicing for 30 years and has had a 97 to 98 percent success rate and has only had a couple patients need to come back and get treated a second time.

The reason I wanted to share this with the class is because I spent months obsessing over HPV and searching the internet for facts, statistics, and anecdotal experiences. I know that there will be people in this class who will contract this virus (in fact most will) and I wanted to let people know that for the vast majority, it really is not a big deal as people have been exposed to many viruses without complications. However, there are people who do have to be proactive and treat this, whether it be by following the traditional medicine route or the natural route, or a combination of both. Regardless it is important to take care of ourselves. I wanted to help bring awareness so people know how widespread HPV truly is. Hopefully by sharing it will not be as "taboo" to everyone, as for now it seems to be machtpolitik. And guys, just because you cannot be tested for this does NOT mean you do not have it and cannot pass it on. Yes, this is something that primarily impacts women (penile, anal, and oral cancers are FAR more rare than cervical), but you can still pass on the virus, so it is bullshit that women have the burden of disclosure and have to worry about rejection due to men being unable to know their HPV status, despite being responsibly tested for STDs.

I am grateful for this course because the realm of science studies helped me think analytically about my own experience with HPV, especially when doing research to decide how to handle my own health. Of course this is not the only thing I learned in this class, but for me, it is the one thing that sticks out most, and I will continue to find my own paths and question the information and advice given to be, even when given by "medical professionals" and "experts."

To end on a lighter note I would like to simply "spit out" some quotes and notes I jotted down from listening to Robin, Ben, and my peers. I will not specify who said what as I do not want to get anyone in trouble, so consider this the CSCS 3331 "Overheards."

• Robin believes that the brain can be reshaped by experience. 
• "It is full of Suburus and lesbians, Vermont is just fine."
• "Do we know more? Yes, much more, but we've forgotten so much..."
• "I want to go out there and fight, fuck, and bench press." 
• "He's just a nasty little hipster who can't get anything right while everyone else is fucking like bunnies."
• "A fact does not equal fact."
• "Why are we talking about millions of people when we are talking about the individual?"
• "Collective wisdom of individuals is right."
• "What can we as scientists make of sexuality?"
• "We don't know if [truer] is in the Oxford dictionary, but we like it anyway since we are from the post-Colbert generation."
• "Read it and weep fucker, got your umlauts right here!"
• "Tell that to an adaptionist evolutionary theory!"
• "I hope someone comes Thursday instead of pregaming for Cancun."
• "What's for breakfast? Jameson."
• "Cops need Robbers."
• "In my complete attempt to get fired continuously, I will mention once again: I'm a sucker for butch lesbians."
• "What is BAMF?"
• "I'm really digging your apparel today."
• "I'm totally talking like a cultural studies hipster right now."
• "There was a professor who required proper spelling on course evaluations because he was tired of reading that he was a 'Dutch Bag.'"
• *Ahem* "Marxist." "How does that make me a marxist that I don't listen to what you say?"
• "Haha sorry honey, biology made me this way and nothing you say can change that, so nice butt honey... I hope you realize there were quotation marks around that."
• "My arm is a communist, it's red. It has star on it... that's fucking nutty."
• Latour would argue that science studies is a form of science. 
• "WE BE DONE!"

And with that I am done... except the following links (that have nothing to do with my post for the most part, but are of interest):

Benjamin Button Disease Brothers Age Reversing
Baking Soda as an Effective for Cancer
10 Things They Don't Tell You at Graduation
Relationship Tips: Date a girl who travels.
Food Combining Chart
http://www.veganpoet.com/articles/dogs-can-be-vegan-too.htm
Another Natural Getting Rid of HPV Blog with GREAT LINKS Attached
HPV and Cervical Cancer Coalition Blogging/Journaling/Discussion/Forum Site

And that's all folks!

Latour & Circulating Reference (& Paradigm & Science Tools)

As much as Latour may or may not have left a lot of us questioning whether the nature of this class or even the entire CSCL department (nationwide, globally, conceptually, etc.) has not been adding to - or even taking away from - fact, reality, 'science,' etc. - he did give us a lot of great ideas in Pandora's Hope. Circulating reference (which I have recently found out that if you Google "circulating reference" our class' blog page shows up TWICE on the FIRST PAGE), at least in the context of Latour, is the cycle of references, definitions/redefinitions, images, concepts in which we apply, intentionally or unintentionally, to understand or decode something - this can completely change the original understanding (or any understanding) of the object. We saw this working out with our class' definition of circulating reference even - which took on different, often incorrect (though reality may be constituted by consensus, and word definitions are not excluded from this) definitions throughout the semester. In Pandora's Hope circulating reference was working side-by-side with other concepts - such as the science tools or the way science goes about translating objects in order to produce data or "science" and paradigm, which is the worldview underneath our model or methodology of science.

These concept(s) are highly valuable because they show a type of critical analysis (science studies) approach to science - which I think is often applied to pre-Enlightenment or non-scientific thinking alone. I don't think this constitutes the ugly criticism that Latour describes in our last reading - something that could, perhaps more appropriately, be applied to Deconstructionist thinking, etc. Understanding science on a conceptual level - translating objects and applying a worldview (which is NOT equated to bias) - is highly important for both scientists and the "critics" who ideally purify science.

This class has inspired me to perhaps look in to science more. When I arrived on campus a couple years ago I was planning on majoring in Plant Biology - now I am an English and Journalism major working as a journalist, and am finishing my second Robin and Ben course. Science can be a conceptually and idealistically interesting subject. Also, I can endlessly harass my brother who is studying Biology that reality doesn't exist - though I obviously don't believe that. Despite what Latour brought us in the past week or so in class, I still have some faith (or reason) that taking a critical look at the way we produce scientific knowledge (or any knowledge, for that matter) is worth our time. I'm happy that I could take a class that supports socially produced knowledge and so much work socially (these days group work seems frowned upon for some reason).

Thank you Tri-force and the rest of the class for a really interesting time.

Eric Best

Compassionate Skepticism

            I think the biggest idea that I’m walking away from this course with is the importance of language in the production of knowledge. Latour used Pasteur as an example of how bacteria “existed” once they were named. As medical research advances and improves, it continues to name things and in turn expands its web of rhetoric and association. Though most of my group work ended up dealing with food (Golden Rice, veganism, urban food deserts…), I always had a personal investment in our discussions of medicine and science. As I mentioned in my first blog post for the class, medicine is in my blood – metaphorically speaking. My father is a dentist, my mother is a Masters-holding nurse practitioner in mental health, and my stepfather was a psychiatrist.

            I walked into the class with the skepticism of my father, the dentist. Every bit a doctor and a man of medicine, he basically just fixes holes in teeth – boy doesn’t floss, boy’s tooth hurts, Papa Graham drills out decaying portion of tooth and fills it with composite. Problem solved. From what I understand, there isn’t really any cutting edge research happening in the field of dentistry; just ways to plug tooth-holes faster and more efficiently (a tip of the cap to the economists in the room). My mother, on the other hand, has spent her entire life providing more immediate care for patients. She administers medication to correct a problem as soon as it arises. Though I tend to lean towards my father’s skepticism of the modern healthcare system (after breaking my collarbone when I was 14, he told me to drink some water and sit in the bath…), I completely understand my mother’s faith in modern medicine. She sees it work, and much in the same way that a root canal works.

We began this course with an examination of apotemnophilia – a wonderful example of a psychological disorder with causes that were arguably physiological (pin prick tests) and debated a treatment that was indisputably effective, albeit controversial. I couldn’t help but think of how my father and mother would both react to such a debate. The two methods of treatment are perfectly suited to both their fields. “If your leg is bothering you, yank it off!,” versus, “This irrational desire obviously stems from a much deeper seated issue and requires further psychological study to determine the best method of treatment.”

I found much comfort in my step father’s attitude towards science, medicine and society at large. Unfortunately, he passed away after a 10 year battle with cancer just two weeks before this semester began, but I can’t think of anyone I would have loved to share our in class discussions with more. An unwaveringly compassionate cynic, he held science in the highest regards while also harboring the deepest contempt for what we have done with it. In rifling through the contents of Tim’s laptop after he passed, I found a link to a blog that he’d created for his humorous writings. I read his blog the week before our class began, but it’s impish cynicism carries much more weight after our discussions. I will walk away from this class with a similar skepticism, now knowing that science is a language to explain what already is. A linguistic act is in inherently social act in that it makes an assumption of the listener in order that it may communicate its intended effect. I will forever be looking for that intent whenever I feel that the rhetoric of science is acting upon me in some way – though it may often go unnoticed. I will leave you all with Tim’s first entry, written under the alias of his alter ego (this is a Yale med school graduate, mind you…), Dr. Dusty Balzac.

             

"Good morning and welcome to the first day of a medical adventure! I'm a physician whose main academic interest concerns lying in all its various forms and glories. Whether it's innocent misrepresentation or frankly heinous and damnable perjury, mendacity carries with it both virtues and vices. My main argument is that a phenomenon so ubiquitous and effortless as deceit must be useful, and that even a kind of splendor can ensue when a great fraud or whopper is perpetrated not merely on the most gullible and untutored rube, but on someone very much like you or me. Accordingly, reader, nothing written in any of these postings is true. DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I WRITE!!! PARTICULARLY ANYTHING ABOUT HEALTH AND MEDICINE!!!
 Why, you might wonder, would I waste my time or yours directing a thick stream of unmitigated bullshit on a world already wallowing up to its chin in this foul current? Why not instead illumine the dark corners of falsehood with blinding shafts of pure and shimmering light? Why not promote truth? Why not?
 Because it's so boring, and so often so wrong. How many times have you read that some miracle diet, supplement, surgery or nostrum has been revealed not merely to be useless but injurious? Remember the great chromium scandal of 2000? The fluoridation scare of 1983? The shameful failures of penile extension surgeries? The Scurvy Controversy of 1893? The proven futility of hand-washing, flossing, a balanced diet and abstinence from bestiality? The robust and completely false assertion that yams cure yaws? Or that scabies causes scrapies?
 You may curse me, dear reader, for being nothing more than an execrable liar of the meanest sort. But I have warned you, and I shall warn you each day, that nothing I post shall contain even the merest scintilla of truth, this sentence included. Enjoy and beware!"

-Dr. Timothy James Twito

http://fifthhumour.blogspot.com/2007/09/good-morning-and-welcome-to-first-day.html

For background on Dr. Balzac, click through to the “About Me” section. Seriously worth it.

Thanks for a great semester everyone!

-Chris

Endless possibilities, Questioning, and of course, Latour :)

Its hard for me too to just pick one thing that I can take away from this class, as we covered so much. Like Quinn said, the unit on sexuality was pretty mind opening for me, as it challenged me to think about gender/sex very differently than I had before. To be honest, the idea that there being more than two sexes was a thought that had previously never crossed my mind. It wasn't that I didn't care, its that I was never put in situations where my (perhaps naiive) way of thinking about gender and sex was called in to question.

 I think that calling into question things I thought were "normal" was by far my favorite part about this class. Growing up surrounded by organic food for example, I just assumed that GMO= bad. But after seeing some presentations and having some lively debates and discussions, I realize that maybe my previous views were somewhat narrow and limited.  Its so easy to assume that the way we think about things is "right,"and with this in mind, I personally appreciated being reminded that there are so many more answers/possibilities than the ones I see or believe in. It goes back to the very first CSCL class I ever took: the sign is arbitrary. Just because it means one thing to me, doesn't mean it means the same thing to you or anybody else. I think in a way, it relates to what Jesse said about doubt, and how without it, we would never be curious. The one thing I think I will take away is to realize that there are multiple sides to a situation or fact, but not to be so critical and "critique-y" that it become dangerous, as Latour talks about in the last essay we read by him (which will also be sticking with me).

I really didn't like Latour at all, until I read that last essay by him. Maybe there were particular parts of it that I didn't agree with, but his main idea of becoming so critical that it takes away importance from things that really do need to be considered...really resonated with me. That is another thing that I will be keeping in mind: being careful not to fetish-ize and make something an "other" to a point where I lose sight of its value and importance in certain parts of culture/society.

Anyways, I have really enjoyed learning with you all this semester, thanks so much!!

The never ending cycle.

I honestly will never be able to explain in a blog my full feelings toward and about a class like this one. 


I took an earlier class in my college career, the cultural studies department that really challenged my beliefs and the way I thought about the world and my existence in it. This however was beyond what I thought I was getting into when combining both the subjects of science and culture. What I don't get and understand or will ever be able to put into words is the fact that there will never be a line to draw in explaining the way something works and in the same way I don't think there is ever a true end to explaining the way, why, the rhetoric, the politics.. etc. IT IS NEVER ENDING.. 


NO matter how much detail or description I go into on one side or the other because of a class like this it has truly given me the ability to understand and argue for any belief or point. Our beliefs are created through both science and culture and the connection is never ending. The tie is like something that doesn't have a spot to un knot it, per say. What I mean by this is no mater how much you dissect  a subject or matter at hand ... there will always be another meaning, reason or something that will go into the next question or argument at hand. 


What I like the most about this class is the fact that people bring so much diversity through all of their experiences and sub cultures of their own which creates the ability for us to understand exactly what I just said. 


What I am taking away from this class is such a little bit more of what I came into it thinking about. I know that fact and my truth and the way that I live and view my life and the way other things works and operate will always be balanced with both science and culture and equally these things create the world we live in through history, nature, rhetoric, our bodies, and I could go on... Looking through my previous blog it's more like what I am taking away from this class is more of an education in which I will look at things with more of a filter and knowing all that I know I am so much more now understanding and knowledgeable of things I didn't simply get or think about before. 

What Truth Means and My Experience

This class has certainly provided me with new insight and perspective on science and culture in theory and well as in context through class readings, presentations and discussions.  Though I found all the class units on the big questions, sexuality, the environment and food to be intriguing I was particularly excited about the sexuality unit.  This was a topic that I had not really had the opportunity to discuss in my science and mathematics courses here at the University.  It is an issue that I find relevant in my life as well as many others, yet there almost seems to be a taboo on talking about sexuality.  Sexuality is portrayed as something dirty, inappropriate or uncomfortable to talk about, and when people do talk about it, there are often misconceptions or misunderstandings.

As I've taken courses in college I have found out that there really are not specific, precise answers to these large and looming subjects like sexuality.  Through this course I have had to synthesis a poster presentation, debate on controversial questions and answers, as well as read two contrasting books on sexuality that gave me shifting, wavering views on the subject.  A Billion Wicked Thoughts provided statistics and case studies to attempt to understand sexuality while labeling genders and sexual preferences with exact scientific processes dwelling in subjects like biology or evolutionary psychology.  Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality offered a historical and theoretical perspective on sexuality that illuminated current misconceptions and misunderstandings while addressing struggles that people face when removed from America's binary system of sexuality.

All throughout this course I have seen and explored scientific and cultural processes to find them meshed, jumbled, and confusingly entangled together.  It has been hard for me to explain or express what this means but I think that the last article by Latour helped clarify things.  The main theme that I took from this last article Why Has Critique Run out of Steam?  From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern is that the problem with critique is that there it is used as a deconstructionist, minimalistic mode of thought taking away from knowledge.  Building knowledge, finding truths, gaining insight needs criticism that evaluates or judges something, but it should be done through experience, collaboration, and an open-mind.  The example in this article about the sunrise helped illustrate this theme for me.  Looking at the sunrise, understanding the sunrise, recognizing the sunrise is in itself an eclectic piece of truth.  The sunrise is a luminous hue of colors that filters through the sky every morning, the sunrise is an assortment of wavelengths that are a specific frequency to be visible to the naked eye, the sunrise is solar radiation that penetrates the atmosphere and warms the earth.  Knowledge is a body of information that accumulates and builds data, expands ideas, and illustrates experiences.


This class has helped me understand how to perceive a seeing-device or particular perspective and see the flaws, the strengths, and how it will interact with other perspectives.  Though this idea of cumulative and building knowledge can seem overwhelming and have no final destination, that is okay.  As an educated student it is my responsibility to attempt to understand issues, topics or subjects and approach them with cation.  I will try to build knowledge, have new experiences, and be open-minded to hopefully gain my own truths and understandings that give me an identity, yet at the same time, I will know that I do not have the ultimate or right answers.

What a Interesting Class.

If I am asked to choose one thing from this class that I am taking away with me, although there is a lot of things excited me, things I am interested in, still it would have to be Rene Descartes's the concept of doubt. On the one hand, it inspires me to always take a step back, do a little research and thinking before believing the"reality". However, on the other hand, it bothers me because now I will have to investigate before trusting anything and anyone? This bothers me and I feel like if I really live with this concept of his, I perhaps will become a conspiracy-er or that I will be alienated from the reality? I don't know.

Part of me think that why can't everybody be honest and right about what they address? So that I can simply trust, follow and live. But apparently, as Bruno Latour mentioned in his very last essay that such style of critique is not getting us anywhere. Only speak for myself, in order for myself to critique something, I have to ask questions myself, I have to doubt. Is Al Gore to be trusted? Is the Earth really warming up? Is Friedman's idea that the market will be able to take care of itself right? As mentioned it interests me and inspires me to explore and to think, but it exhausts me to doubt everything all the time. One recent experience that I can share is that I went to a Living Green Expo yesterday and in the exhibition, there were a lot of different companies selling their green energy ideas, green energy apparatus like solar panel. I doubt if that solar panel is going to help, I doubt which organization I can trust, I doubt what their purpose behind, and I doubt. 

Doubting everything and doubting things all the time may make one alienated from reality. The more one doubts or questions reality, the more likely one will be alienated. But when one is alienated from the reality, where else can one go? Can one create another place that reality does not exist? Although I am so sure about what I just asked, it reminded me of a interview of Steven Pinker talking about why he called the ideas, the blank slate, the noble savage and the ghost in the machine, myths. He said, "Even if you acknowledge, as you have to acknowledge, that learning, socialization, and culture are indispensable aspects of human behavior, you have to admit that you can't have culture unless you have some kind of innate circuitry that can invent and acquire culture to begin with." I don't know if I interpret it right, it gives me a sense that he is suggesting if one wants to escape from reality, one will need to have power to create another reality for oneself. But is that possible? And how is one going to do that? 

Siting in a circle, listening and observing peers from a foreigner perspective, learning from course materials and professors and creating the platform of knowledge together are inspiring. Listening to what everyone wants to express and being open-minded to every single piece of opinion are valuable. This learning style is something I have never experienced before and I doubt if classes I am taking in the future will give me same feeling and excitement. To me, a lot of these course materials are fresh to me, and I as a film major, I wouldnt' be exposed to all these science-oriented issues if I hadn't taken this class. Last but not least, I want to thank Robin for being a excellent example of what I think a professor should be, I want to thank Ben for being enthusiastic and I want to thank everyone for showing me how one's perspective is so effective. This combination of passionate professors, highly informative course materials and inspirational colleagues make me no longer a frog in the well. 

The Student I Was, and the Individual I Am Now.

          As students, we learn many subjects but fail to notice that each one of them as interconnected fields of study. Majors remain fragmented in their realm of specialization. Insulated disciplines are housed in segregated departments to legitimize their own specific sets of ideologies. Sometimes we were lucky to find that calculus mathematics was integral to the study of physics and Newtonian motion. However, prior to this class, I would have never imagined the College of Biological Sciences to have any relevance to the School of Economics, or Political Science all the way over in the West Bank of campus. As a result of majoring in Physiology and being focused on the areas of basic science for the majority of my life, I have become a sponge to soaking up the dominant culture of my department. No longer could I see the political and social ties that my study had with other disciplines, and stopped questioning what the consequences of my actions as a scientific researcher and student had on the world. As an example, I would have never considered A Billion Wicked Thoughts as a dangerously reductionist and over-simplified piece of literature. In fact, I was most familiar with this style of writing, as it followed the recipe of the scientific method that I grew accustomed to. If this book was protected in its nest of Cartesian thinking, the discipline would have reinforced the dominant culture of this book. Without the type of interdisciplinary analysis platforms that this class has provided, individuals who do not fit in the fixed coordinates of man and woman embedded in Oggadam’s words would have no place in society. There would be no one to indict the interests tied to the questions that did not get asked or resolved within the discipline and wonder what lay in the large pile of unsorted data in the background. We would further homogenize the dominant culture reinforced in this book.     

          This realization brought two thoughts. First, I am grateful that I am now aware of the political and social contexts affected by my field of basic science study, which I previously thought of as a “pure” subject that works to reveal the “truths” of the world. I now know that this is an unattainable ideal; just as the unbreakable ties of nature and nurture, fact is always associated with context. Second, I realize the pitfalls of what current academic disciplines unconsciously lead us to do: limit discourse. To be a part of a discipline means to ask a certain set of questions, use a particular set of terms, and study a narrow set of things. Inconformity results in poor grades, failure to graduate, and exclusion from the group. Therefore it becomes increasingly difficult for a student to reanalyze their specialty from different points of views; and especially for science majors, raised to think that they are revealing pure truth, to even consider another discipline to be as “legitimate” as theirs.

          CSCL 3331 provides a platform for self-regulating discourse, one that critiques the current state and creates possibilities out of them for the future. I am grateful for the people who enriched our discussions. I loved hearing Emily’s critical voice of literature as an English major with an eye for the process of writing styles, and I appreciated the Economic background inputs from Chris. As each major incorporated their specialties to a seemingly-unrelated topic, each subject matter of this course blossomed to reveal its interdisciplinary ties and influences.

          At the end of the semester, I am aware of the social and political implications of my study. I am no longer a physiology major that researches to reveal the metabolic pathways of the potent hyperphagia-promoting neuropeptide NPY. Instead, I realize that I am an individual with a degree in physiology that investigates to help the society’s obesity epidemic.       

Reductionism: not all that bad

The biggest concept I'm taking away from this class is the reductionism that takes place in the sciences. It seems like reductionism was largely given a negative connotation in the majority of our in class discussions. Heck, even my poster presentation labeled poster presentations as reductionist and said that such presentations should be scrapped and replaced with presentations that give a more complete overview of research projects. 

However, it seems like we've forgotten that diagram the Latour drew in Pandora's Hope with the two cones pointing in opposite directions, with reductionism on one side and something like greater visibility on the other (sorry I forget the exact wording, I don't have my copy of Pandora's Hope with me). With each increase in reductionism comes an increase in overall visibility. The only way the multidisciplinary team in Brazil was able to answer the question of whether the savanna or the forest was creeping forward was by using a series of reductionist seeing devices: the Cartesean grid, the paedeocompactor, the Munsel code, ect.

Now that I'm thinking about it more, reductionism is really an unavoidable part of science. It would have been impossible for the team at Boa Vista to have brought back the entire forest-savanna transition region back to their labs for analysis. Even my coveted lab notebook, the source of my "raw" data, is a reductionist entity. I use it to transform an entire experiment into one neatly partitioned page of instructions and observations. Completely removing reductionism from the sciences would cripple the sciences. Without reductionism, we would not be able to pick out the patterns that lead to the next blockbuster drug, the next breakthrough in green technology, the next big whatever. Instead of associating reductionism with the devil and condemning it, we need to remind ourselves that reductionism is an integral part of science and is necessary for any sort of scientific progress.

Science going Forward

The poster project on poster projects really got to me. I feel like i had a good understanding of how science works in universities like ours. I work for the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, so I have seen and worked with a lot of scientific projects over the past 3 years. Basically, it seemed like the posters that Julian and others brought in were perfect examples of something like UROP. You do research, find something out, and present it. What was great about their presentation though, was that it showed how complex and muddled some of these projects really are. There is literally a book of references, and no one in there right mind would sift through that book at a conference when there are over 100 posters about different research projects there. This is science though. At research universities like ours, this is how science gets done. Very brief presentations of findings, and everyone sort of says, "ok, good research, lets have a beer".

My point about all of this is that the scientific process has become very complex and muddled to me. Each  study has such a complex background. How is any layman such as myself supposed to figure out and actually UNDERSTAND any of this stuff? I am not sure that there is a decent answer to this question. The contemporary scientific process is kind of ridiculous. In order to get funding you have to make sure your getting results conducive with the people who funded you. Now this might not always be true, but i think we can all agree it has effected the science that we see now. There is always a correlation between one thing and another. People were paid to find that correlation.

In spite of all of what I just said, I want science to succeed. If this is the way science in the world gets done now, I feel almost helpless to call for some sort of accountability. The point is that I believe science is going to end up being the thing humanity cherishes most. And thats ok with me. Science isn't perfect. It has problems and mix-ups because the people who are doing it are human. It will never be a "perfect science". But at the same time, science in general has done and has the potential to do some REALLY GOOD THINGS in the world. I totally believe in reality, and if that reality is scientifically produced, thats ok with me. I guess what I am saying is that science, no matter all of the complex issues about funding and ethics, is going to become the dominant paradigm about how we operate in the world. We already did it in this class, looking at things that might be phenomenal, and dismissing them on the grounds of western science. However, while it is important to have a critical eye on this type of thing, science is going to go forward regardless. Don't get me wrong, the cultural influences matter, but science will still move, even though people like us are trying to figure out how.

A Reflection

Honestly it was hard for me to only pick ONE thing from this class that I am taking with me.  Overall I feel that this is a great class to end my college career with and know that especially the perspective of how we took apart science, rhetoric and politics will stay with me throughout my life.  I thought it was a great way to look at science through a cultural perspective, a stark difference from the hard core, narrow minded, science classes that I am accustom to.  

I think one of my favorite days in class were the poster projects.  I can say for a fact I will never again drink orange juice or eat Oreos in the same way again!  I appreciated the different perspectives that were addressed in the different issues brought up.  Is golden rice a good thing or a bad thing? What should be done when addressing the issue of genital mutilation.  I will always remember Robin putting our project group in the spotlight when he asked well "could sex reassignment surgery also be considered also a form of genital mutilation?"  But this is what this class has done; caused us to question and stretch our way of thinking, and to look at the full multi-fasciated side to different topics in science and culture.  Posed hard convoluted questions with no straight answers, with the always popular "so is this dangerous to the public?".  

This class has made me realize how important science affects our culture, in ways that I had never thought about.  Before this class I had never looked at so many different topics in such a critical way; what really determines a person's sex?  

I appreciated our discussions and the many different points of view that were brought in, I think that we can all agree that our ways of thinking were challenged in a good way.  I will miss the snarky comments (that mostly came from Jacque) and everyones passion for different particular topics or Ben's way of getting worked up and almost bouncy with excitement over where the discussion was going.  A THANK YOU to all of you, I feel that we had a great class and especially in the blog posts, we a chance to get to know everyone.  Good luck in where ever you all end up it has been fun :) 

I have my doubts.

I said this when we were reading Sexing the Body: "I find myself asking questions about things I thought I already knew." It's this idea of doubt. How much we really know. The more we know, it seems, the less we really know. In the early 20th century physicists thought the field was exhausted, little did they know there were neutrinos and quarks and all sorts of other things floating around in our universe! The idea is doubt.

Why am I bothered by this? I'm not. The thing that intrigues me about doubt is that it makes you wonder. It makes you ask questions. Is this safe for me? Do I really know all sides to this argument? It just makes a person wonder, curious, whatever you want to call it. Some people say curiosity killed the cat, but I don't like cats, so have at it! My point is, that without doubt, people would never be curious. People would never wonder. We might still be eating raw meat and living a nomadic lifestyle if someone didn't doubt that there was a better way to prepare food (There has to be a way to make this food last! This can't be the best way to keep it...).

So, what am I taking away from this? I honestly don't know right now... I may be able to tell you a little while, but I don't know. I can't tell you exactly what doubt makes me do. I see myself, every day, taking a step back to examine what exactly I'm doing/achieving, asking if this is the right thing, if there's a better way, if I should do something differently. That's what doubt means to me: constantly and consistently examining, re-examining, and re-re-examining all aspects of my life and knowledge. That's doubt. That's what we did in this class. That's what I did in this class. And maybe that's the most important thing I can ever have, my doubts.

Reality

What bothers me the most walking out of this class comes from the very first chapter of Latour that we raid. I'm not trying to say anyone is crazy here, but I have a hard time understanding how someone can question reality or just blatantly not believe in it at all.  This was the one thing in class that I truly felt could be dangerous to the public, much more than a novel about global warming.

Once people stop believing in reality, in theory I would figure that they would stop believing in any sort of consequences for their actions. After all, if this isn't reality why does it matter? If I viewed reality as nonexistent, I probably would not give a crap for what I did to myself or other people.

I don't have any answers to this problem because it is one that I can't really define or understand myself. If you don't believe in reality what do you believe in? This thought process just doesn't make sense to me and it's absolutely a question that will plague me for years to come as I try to find the answer to someone else's question.

Blog posting #10 (due SUNDAY 5/6, 11:59 P.M. (comment due MONDAY 5/7, 11:59 P.M.)): Final reflection/discussion

This last post is real open...and meant as a kind of final reflection/discussion. We'd like you to do the following:

1) Choose one thing from this class (a text, an issue, a concept, an object, a theme, a case study, etc.) that you are taking away with you from this class -- something that still excites you, or bothers you, or intrigues you. Ideally, something that has changed, even in some small way, the way that you see and act in the world. Examples? All our issues around WHY we should bother (or not) with critical studies of science--and how to do it right (or wrong).  What's it help us to know about Early Butz' shifts in agricultural support?  Or that there's beetle shells in red dye?  Or that we've forgotten about how many scientists really believed in spontaneous generation?

2) Describe it, briefly: what it is, and why it excites/bothers/intrigues you.

3) Reflect on what about it you are taking away from this class, and how it has (in whatever way) altered your thoughts about and actions in the world. If possible/appropriate, make reference to how the issue played out in class discussion, in the context of other topics/issues/themes/texts/concepts/cases we have been dealing with. And put some people in, if you can!  Think about our colleagues--who said what, who takes a particular kind of position, who gave you a different view of things, and see if you can get their voices and presence into what you bring us.

Latour, Intellectual and Extremist Critiquing

“While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices hidden behind the appearance of objective statements, do we now have to reveal the real objective and incontrovertible facts hidden behind the illusion of prejudices? And yet entire Ph.D. programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always prisoners of language, that we always speak from a particular standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives.”

Latour raises are very important point with this statement. Our critiquing of ideas may very well have helped in the advancement of our world, discovering of new concepts, understanding of life and over turning of incorrect ideas. In a teaching environment, we are encouraged to come up with our own ideas, critique others ideas while taking bias out of it which I think is impossible. People invest time, money and hard work into researching an idea that they believe is the ultimate unbiased truth only to be critiqued by there peers who may or may not have been investing almost the same amount of resource into the same topic. They are speaking from a particular standpoint and thus radiate the idea that it is impossible to find and gain truth. Take for example the project topic on saving the rainforest and saving the planet, they are presenting the ideas they believe is the ultimate truth with research that complements their idea, while the class critiques the idea. Others who critique the idea usually have their own preconceived notion and thus would either argue for against it with research that also complements their own idea too.

The unfortunate part to this all is that dangerous extremists have taken advantage of intellectuals constant need to critique ideas even if they are saving lives. They have used it pursue their agendas destroying years of research that has been saving lives. Take for instance the project on vaccination, the James ‘guy’ who has a website where he comments on his ideas about vaccination. He encourages people not to get vaccinated against illness such as polio, MMR, all of which kill tens of thousands of people in America before the vaccination was discovered and still killing millions in Africa. He has no intellectual degree; he criticizes researches with no valid or concrete point to support his conception.

Latour is right, we should be concerned about what criticizing of ideas are really affecting our institutions.

Weakening Science Through Discourse

"And, yet, I know full well that this is not enough because, no matter what

we do, when we try to reconnect scientific objects with their aura, their

crown, their web of associations, when we accompany them back to their

gathering, we always appear to weaken them, not to strengthen their claim

to reality. I know, I know, we are acting with the best intentions in the world,

we want to add reality to scientific objects, but, inevitably, through a sort

of tragic bias, we seem always to be subtracting some bit from it." (237)

Throughout our coursework this semester we have been navigating the intricate "web of associations" to which Latour refers. Science is used to explain what we already know is, and uses language to do so. Let's use ADD as an example. Concerned parents begin to notice that their children are having a hard time concentrating for extended periods of time. A psychological condition is named and enters into circulation as language. If I had to explain the work we've done this semester to Mom, I would point out that a culture that would seek to label, diagnose and medicate an inattentive child might offer the best explanation for the very need to do so. We live in the age of speed, and science/technology is our best friend. Where there once were books, now there are videos. Where there once were slide-rules, now there are graphing calculators. Hell, even Kraft Mac-n-Cheese got faster in my lifetime. As science and technology expedite productivity in the industrialized world, we have come to expect more of people (both young and old) in less time. We have produced so much stuff - in the broadest sense of the word - that we now have to give our children amphetamines so they can keep up. Yet science lets us name a disorder rather than saying "your daydreaming kid isn't producing enough work during an 8-hour day of 4th grade (structured and regimented like a day at the office...) so lets just give him powerful medication that will speed his brain up."

Science is, essentially, the ordering and naming of things - less an act of discovery, but rather of explanation. By naming we end up with inevitable associations that come with language. In this course we have literally mapped these associations. We need the language of science but the real stuff of science doesn't need us and never has.

Fear of Reality

I was fascinated with Latour's article, and found myself responding to it in a very sporadic way. Below is my critical engagement with Latour and some of his ideas... be it gullible or intellectual, it's a critique nonetheless...

I believe that human beings have evolved in to species that live by and through metaphor. We identify to more visceral forms of media provocation, and respond less excitedly than audiences... well, humans, of the past. We are constantly searching for meaning (I'm writing that quite literally as my roommate sings the lyrics, "I never know what I'm searching for, but it's always on my mind") Well, you're searching and you're not finding anything. Or maybe you do, but the laws of... evolution?,say, or, call it what you will, press you further down the road of critique and desired advancements. We are beings of progress, and progress is made greatly through scientific means... but to what extent? The text from Latour's article has already been drawn in our blog community, and I'd like to redraw upon it now:

“And, yet, I know full well that this is not enough because, no matter what we do, when we try to reconnect scientific objects with their aura, their crown, their web of associations, when we accompany them back to their gathering, we always appear to weaken them, not to strengthen their claim to reality. I know, I know, we are acting with the best intentions in the world, we want to add reality to scientific objects, but, inevitably, through a sort of tragic bias, we seem always to be subtracting some bit from it.” (237)

I guess I wouldn't completely agree with everything being said about science here. Medicine is the most incredible advancement of man and, when not abused or being scandalized, helps to save and maintain many lives. Our compassion toward humanity is far greater in fueling the positive scientific advancements of the future. But of course with so many people, personalities, and the inevitable duality of life, comes conflict, hate, and deceit. That we can love means also that we can hate. 

It becomes difficult to know truth in a reality based in multiple realities. There's an overwhelming amount of information, and it's relevance becomes less and less as we are constantly responding to different stimuli. I feel less impassioned due to this trend of life. What do you do when you lose the passion for something and then are drowning in a bunch of books?...

Latour suggests we should maybe fight criticism with criticism...

We create controversy in any case ("artificially maintained controversy" (227)) And why do we cling to controversy, even in cases where the scientific evidence is extremely faulty? It's DRAMA! We looove drama. If we lived in a world without conflict or opposing viewpoints or tension... there would be nothing to live for. Therefore we've created reality through often times a dualistic lens and find refuge in the extremes, sometimes the neutral, but always a place where one can lie on a scale and be identified. It's all about identity, sometimes it's hard for people to admit that they're more the same than different. We love being able to identify with people, ideas, or things, but love even more the ways in which we can be different.

"What's the difference between deconstruction and constructivism?" (232). I would say there isn't a difference. That all creation comes from destruction, and that we must always be caught in this cycle if any progress is to be made. I suppose it is when true destruction does not occur, or true creation, that the "destruction" is then useless. How would you define destruction and creation? Are they the same as deconstruction and constructivism... I think so, I think those are just more polite ways of saying the same thing.

"For natural philosophy everything perceived is in nature. We may not pick up and choose. For us the red glow of the sunset should be as much part of nature as are the molecules and electric waves by which men of science would explain the phenomenon" (244).

In other words, our perceptions of nature are just as keen and insightful as the tedious scientific explanations of natural phenomenon. In fact, we should be more apt at exploring nature in the former way. We limit ourselves by making a choice, instead of allowing the forces of nature to act upon us and to allow that choice to come naturally.

"The solution or, rather, the adventure, according to Whitehead, is to dig much 

further into the realist attitude and to realize that matters of fact are totally 

implausible, unrealistic, unjustified definitions of what it is to deal with 

thing" (244).

I find both statements to be incredible in that they're beginning the deconstruction of what many people might believe, which is that facts are definers of reality. They can even go as far as distorting reality, and missing the mark on why Things are to be critically engaged with in the first place. I agree with Latour that the word "critique" needs to be revisited, reinvestigated.  

De-Re-CONSTRUCT

 "Can we devise another powerful descriptive tool that deals this time with
matters of concern and whose import then will no longer be to debunk but
to protect and to care, as Donna Haraway would put it? Is it really possible
to transform the critical urge in the ethos of someone who adds reality to
matters of fact and not subtract reality? To put it another way, what’s the
difference between deconstruction and constructivism?"


   Language and the ability to create new ideas and beliefs or proof of something as matter of fact is something that is one of the most exciting things to tackle and I could write a whole book on the matter, no pun intended. Not necessarily that my opinion and matters would be correct or accurate but they would be based on what I think, know, have created etc.


 I think that the cycle in which creation and construction happens really can relate to this idea that Latour is talking about in this passage. WHAT is the difference between deconstruction and constructivism??


I truly believe that what this is getting at is that through destruction, a new creation is formed and vise versa with all construction deconstruction is inevitable when change comes, It seems that although we would like to believe our world, society, culture is always growing, I think that that when you look at it in a different unique way we can establish the circular form just as culture and science and the tie or connection.


What we believe it is important to dissect, as always we like to trace it back as culture studies through nature or nurture, and also follow it up with science and other forms of 'evidence'. I found this article to be extremely moving in the way that it really hits it on target for the reasons of why we even want to know where fact and why fact and validation simply for anything we know. 


That brings me into this passage again. The tool of concern and why? To protect and to care... where do all of these ideas come from in the first place, who decided what reality is? I don't know whether this is an answer to any of these or if the answer like it always is is the question of whether or why you believe it in the first place. I don't really know how to place what my major idea behind how I feel about this. Is it weird that one little passage could make me question myself over and over and over? I don't know what is true or what is false, and yet are true and false opposites or are they created to make up for the lake of something else?


The battle, we will never be able to figure it out. This struggle of science and culture. How they create each other and form each other and which one really adds to the other one or takes away from the opposite. Our beliefs and actions and facts of matter or concern are all made up from ideas in which we can't decide where they came from. Why does science, and experiment make anything accurate? Why can't someone idea without any evidence simple be enough? And how is a book such as a bible something that so many people will surround themselves around and believe in and look up and worship higher than something that was written by someone else and why do we believe that it isn't just bs as we do with others. There are so many questions I could keep posing such as this that I feel really tie in Latour and the article. I don't know how to answer any of them.. and ALL I can do is create more questions and have feelings based off of those. Construction or deconstruction or reconstruction or reinforcement or destruction or anything.. it's a cycle and that's all I can really confirm.