"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 2500 years of Western philosophy to explain why. Why a study of a scientific 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. Why there doesn't need to be a chasm (or a Washington Avenue) with 'science' on one side and 'culture' on the other. But it'll take much more than 22 pages to upend the 'science wars'. 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 for Tuesday, 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 and I have spent a long time talking about how Pinker succeeds in provoking us and making us question our values. Now we want to know how he works on you.
1) Choose one moment in Pinker's "The Blank Slate" (as short as a phrase, as long as a paragraph) 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 is saying, and perhaps how he's saying it, that is speaking to them 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, acting out the 'science wars'? What are the stakes? Why do you care -- and why should we, who are reading your words? Feel free to bring in Latour, Elliot and/or Brang if they'll help you do this theorizing/reflecting. (But if they won't, don't!)
As always: the post is due on Sunday 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 Monday 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.
Have fun! And of course, if you get stuck, always feel free to contact us.
No comments:
Post a Comment