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.
I agree that as science majors, we depend on “seeing devices” to simplify certain life processes. This process alone may be reductionist, but I believe that science does not have to remain in this “reductionist” category. What I mean to say is that although your chemistry poster, hanging on a wall on its own, may be reductionist; but it does not have to end there. And in your case, did not end at a reductionist line as you presented your work in front of other scientists and defended what implications your work has for the broader society. Yes, reductionist thinking helps to initiate important thought processes, but I believe that as soon as the data is incorporated into a better understanding of the world around us, it ceases to become reductionist. In contrast to your thoughts on this topic, this class has taught me that science is not reductionist; it has important social and political implications that elevate its role in the world even more.
ReplyDeleteThis post was really good. I think it is always interesting to see the point of view from someone who is majoring in and studies such different concept than I do in school. The world around us and the way science acts in our culture is important and this class has totally helped me understand some of that
ReplyDelete