I'm still having problems with Robin's/Latour's idea that X(microbes, etc..) didn't exist before they were named/discovered. I understand that historically that there have been many different paradigms that have influenced the human understanding of the "state of things" (and that there will probably be many more in the future), yet when Robin says they actually did not exist is where my conflict arises. This seems so anthropocentric, that something could not exist unless humans know of it or have experienced it. I still firmly believe that science exists to discover the underlying reality of things, and that humans may just not have the mental capacity to do so. But, I think this is still the best way we have to to make sense of the universe. I believe that knowledge and information are created, but that facts and observations are discovered. I think this serves to delegitimize science by inferring that since scientific paradigms change, we shouldn't trust science. But what other way do we have to understand the universe? Religion? Faith? Authoritative decree? Not for me. Anyone can do science, and in fact, the best science is done in the face of the status quo. It's what will win you a Nobel prize.
I think we've used the word science a bit loosely in this class and that most of the things we've talked about have had more to do with technology than science. I propose a re-naming of the course to 'The Application of Technology and the Humanities'. Because the reason most of the general public cares about science at all is because of the technologies that come out of it, and not the science itself.
Another conflicting idea for me in this class is the proposition that science cannot say anything about morality. I'm not sure about this. Here is a neurologist that says maybe it can. I'm not sure all of his arguments are sound, but some of the things he says make some sense.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
This has been a fun class, it was nice to have met all of you.
I can see what you mean, but I don't think that Robin has delegitimized science. For me, at least. I no longer see science as something that's pure and unsullied by society, just because its going to inevitably be influenced by the world around it. The special thing for me about science is that being pure and solely fact-based is its goal, and it can admit when its proven wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs for things not existing before they were discovered, my understanding of Robin is that he's playing with words and history a bit. Go back to the early 1900s and bring up quarks or supergravity or any other discovery since then and people will correctly tell you those things do not exist. Not because they aren't there, but because the words themselves have no meaning. Their definitions don't exist yet. It'd be like me using some made up word in a conversation now, "tarmi" for example. You'd tell me there's no such thing as a tarmi, and you'd be correct. Whether or not I discover something in 20 years and call it a tarmi wouldn't change that fact.