What are those scientist saying? Who knows, it's all Greek to me.

I once asked my mom what she thought I would be when I grew up. She said she always thought I would be a doctor or a veterinarian. From childhood, I displayed analytical skills and an inquisitive nature characteristic of a scientist. Seventeen years later, she is not far off. I am a chemical engineer.

My studies of science and engineering (with a chemistry emphasis of course) have changed my ideas about legitimation, reality, and naming. The transitions happened so gradually and fit so well with my developed personality that I did not even realize it was happening. The most profound development was my mastery of a new dialect specific to science with a focus on chemical and engineering backgrounds. While reading “Circulating Reference”, the emphasis on dialect became apparent to me in two ways: the constant mention of recording observations and procedures in a notebook and the conversation regarding the soil texture (sandy-clay or clayey-sand). For example,

To translate, the sentence above states: viscosity decreases as shear rate increases for laminar flow; therefore, the fluid is a power-law, shear-thinning fluid with rheological parameters of n and K and a shear stress with units of pascals. Even when translated into plain English, this sentence can be confusing to those who have not been taught this dialect. This dialect is made up of Greek letters, mathematical symbols, relevant constants of nature (generally represented numerically or with a symbol named after the discovering scientist), and often trends, charts, and figures. A simple, 2D data plot can say a whole page worth of information. This dialect is the reason that scientists may seemingly be "speaking Greek" according to a person not familiar to the dialect (which the scientist very well might be as many scientific parameters are represented by Greek letters). However, a challenge that science currently faces is that most people do not speak or understand the dialect. Thus, misunderstandings about the data (aka those popular stories reported on the news such as “Dandelion Root Benefits Can Boost Your Immune System and Cure Cancer” or “Sugar as Addictive as Cocaine, Heroin”) can and do happen all too often.

I believe this dialect has been perfected across all disciplines of science as an instrument or tool for objective persuasion and conciseness. By objective persuasion, I mean that when presenting scientific results, the author means to persuade the reader that the conclusion generated was correct based on the data. This persuasion is performed by presenting ALL data (including the non-desirable points that may not necessarily support the conclusion) and allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion while guiding the reader through the procedures used to obtain and “work-up” (analyze) the data. If the science performed was worth-while and objectively performed, the conclusion of the reader will be the conclusion of the author. If the author’s conclusion is not sound based on the data gathered, it will be obvious to the readers and the author will lose credibility. Scientists tend to be a skeptical, realist group with a long memory.

The dialect of science is old but fluid. It finds its origins in the earliest settlements in human history that had any sort of writing or knowledge regarding architecture and building or manipulation of their environment. It is fluid because it has expanded and become more sophisticated over time as discoveries were and are made.

The potential dangers of techno-science

I can think of a way that techno-science has shaped, if but for some time, a past roommate of mine. When I first met her, I noticed she had some mild tendencies of OCD. For example, she would take hours to complete her morning and evening routine, which simply included getting ready; she nitpicked at her skin a lot and was obsessed with any insubstantial and, frankly, unnoticeable “imperfections” she had. This was the extent to which I first noticed she had such tendencies. However, after going to the doctor once, she came back and said that she had been diagnosed with OCD. Things became a little wild after this—this diagnosis produced a sense of legitimation for her disorder. She started nitpicking not just at her skin but also at every minute detail. Things had to be spotless in the kitchen; any little strand of hair that fell on the kitchen floor became an egregious offense, and the vacuum could almost daily be heard in her room. When Carl Elliot spoke of the concept of “semantic contagion,” I immediately thought of my roommate and how, in light of this event in which her doctor concretized or reified her OCD, she became even more OCD, allowing it to spread into her other forms of behavior, as described. I reflect back on this now and am reminded of the potential dangers of science. It makes me think of how it can distort and obscure our actual perceptions of what is true and real. I saw this “instrument”—her doctor listening and observing my roommate as well as prescribing her with this condition—in a way as counterproductive to her betterment; even though she had been given, I believe, SSRI’s to combat her OCD, it only seemed as though she became worse because she had re-conceptualized her own self and her own predilections for cleanliness and “perfection” upon learning about her diagnosis and doing follow-up research on what it means to have OCD. She would have been better off developing more self-awareness and self-esteem on her own rather than plunging into (in this case) the abyss of techno-science and believing in the authority and instruments of her doctor to figure out exactly “what’s wrong” with her.

Blog Post #2--Techno-science shaping lives (ours, for example). Due Saturday 3rd @ 11:59 PM; comment by Sunday 4th @ 11:59PM

Tell a story—about techno-science shaping your life—and use our work so far to make sense of it.  Take both 'techno-science' and 'shaping your life' however you need to to make it interesting (to you and us all)


Like What? Thinking back, I (Robin) realized that I was a fidgity, loud, easily distracted (Oooo! A shiny thing….!) non-punctual, chaotic kid. The nuns in elementary school knew exactly what I was: 'an ill-behaved child' who was not 'working up to his potential.'  The appropriate treatment was time-outs, notes-to-mom, and occasional paddling. Today, I would be diagnosed ADHD and probably treated with Ritalin or Adderal. And the nuns can't paddle (by law). My life would have been different, for sure, but who knows how?

In High School, we heard all the time about who was and who wasn't 'college material.' My SAT scores proved that I was 'college material,' and I went to college (in spite of erratic and crappy grades).

This is science at work, naming, categorizing, measuring, offering stories, diagnosing, and thus creating ('making up' or 'constructing') things like bad kid / ADHD kid or 'college material.'  Like all constructions, they're absolutely 'real'; these decisions and labels have consequences; shape lives.

'Sir Francis Ford's children giving a coin to a beggar.'
1789.  London:  Tate Gallery.

Carl Elliot would help by framing historically-local 'disorders,' and talking about the 'semantic contagion' involved in lots of 'direct-to-consumer' drug ads, and lots of articles about ADHD and child-rearing.  Pinker would look to my genes (and my OC father and alcoholic but literate parents). Lewontin would insist that naming a kid 'disordered' (or not) changes him or her, and that the diagnoses mirror and legitimate already-present societal beliefs. Just like the way Dickens writes up Oliver Twist and 'The Artful Dodger' mirrors and confirms a belief that the poor are — well — just inferior to us wealthy folks by nature. And more exciting: that the labels then act to shape the person, whose behavior greatly effects whether and how his or her genes get passed on: 'constructivism.'

And most useful, maybe, might be Latour's account of the ways instruments — 'devices for seeing' (his Topofil, Munsell color code, technical names like 'sandy loam,' maps, theories etc.) literally make the mud and worms of Amazonia into 'facts' and data that can move around, that can be talked about, that take on scientific reality.  The DSM criteria that define a psychological  'disorder' also make it.  Terms like ADHD or SAT scores don't simply refer to some neurological pattern in Robin's head (and body).  They construct Robin (and all his fidgety friends, some of whom went to college).

Robin finds he's not going to die of prostate cancer--maybe.  And that he became (by definition) less manly in 2010, because testosterone / PSA levels just 'naturally' decline with age.  It's a fact.

So really:  how did techno-science construct you (or your family, friends or the world you live in)? 

Let your Science and Culture friends know about you. And explain some science-in-action.  
Use our readings to frame and illuminate. All of them, including Brave new world, say — if reading it brought the power and danger of 'science' into focus for you.

Concepts and Issues—from our Keywords and readings (some of many; might help):

Big Ones: All societies have always had 'theories' of Human Nature (science) and these are active in creating specific Political Systems (politics). Always intertwined.

• boundary work (ways science limits, defines, circumscribes)
• naming (and all the other forms of what we'd now call 'circulating reference') 
• conditions / disorders (and diagnoses, treatments)
• instruments / seeing devices / (tests, surgeries, therapies, names-and-definitions, measuring and seeing instruments, ways of talking or writing, maybe even novels and other 'art')
• 'blank slate' (or tabula rasa)
• 'ghost in the machine' (our friend the self or soul)
• noble savages or states of nature
• sociobiology or evolutionary psychology (as disciplines)
• neuroscience / cognitive science (also disciplines—CF: 'boundary work')
• legitimation (ways that science 'makes things so,' as Jean-Luk would say).  If the College Board says you're smart, well, then you are.)
• fact-making and social construction (with all its problems)
• semantic contagion (lots us now have gluten sensitivity — because we know how to 'test' for it, and Dr. Oz did a show on it)

No Purpose

 "Evolution is amoral and without purpose, that doesn't mean that the products of evolution, namely ourselves, are selfish, or that we are amoral and without purpose." 

This quote is from The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. I completely agree with the first half of this statement. Evolution has no special meaning, specifically when talking about Homo Sapiens or any other species for that matter. Other than to pass on successful genes to their offspring, evolution has no morals or ulterior purposes that guide it. Humans have the cognitive ability to weight consequences of their actions and decided whether or not that action is acceptable for them to do. Thus, by this definition, humans do have ingrained morals due to social pressures they grow up with all of their lives. The thing I have difficulty agreeing with is that humans have a purpose. I say this because I feel that it needs to be further prefaced. I agree that like all other species, we are the product of evolution and do not inherently have a purpose other than to exist and procreate. However, this does not mean that individuals cannot determine a purpose for themselves. Due to our cognitive ability, we are completely capable of deciding what we place value on and do so on a daily basis. Values and beliefs are dependent on one's experiences and upbringing, and while their behavior is partially dependent on these learned opinions, genetics play an important role as well.

The source of these values for me are derived from my rather pragmatic, existentialist view of the world. The quote speaks to me, individually, because the experiences I have had in the past have led me to the realization that each person determines what is morally sound to themselves. Those morals and values are influenced by multiple inputs, and it is ridiculous to pin the responsibility to any single entity. This article frustrates me because it is looks at two extremes and nothing in between, either a "blank slate" or one that has already been defined by the Heavenly Father or genetics. Yet, why not approach things with empirical ideals brought about by science and society? To go along with the analogy, the Blank Slate is not completely blank. It has faint blue lines that guide the choices and decisions that humans make, and those faint blue lines were put there in part by both nature and nurture.

Pinker and I are acknowledging both sides of the science wars, and I think we are both saying that culture and science should have a seat a the table. The stakes are high, because whichever side 'wins' will be the governing influence in the political world. Therefore, by deciding which "better" determines political and social problems, scientific realism or postmodernism, we are essentially choosing the method as to how our future politics and policies should be decided.

In connection the points raised by Pinker, Dutton, Dawkins and company, James Fallon seems to hold an intermediary position that could broker a bit of a truce in the science-culture war surrounding genetics and determinism.

Here is a TED talk by James Fallon, PhD, the psychopath.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer

I believe that he, himself, is the truce because while he undeniably has the genetic component for psychopathy he is....happily married and not in lore of modern psychopaths. He makes the wonderful point that both the genetic and environmental factors must each be present and stimulated.

Pinker

"I would argue that nothing makes life more meaningful than a realization that every moment of consciousness is a precious gift."

I felt that this quote confirmed some of what I believe to be true. As a domestic violence advocate, this quote resonated with me because I have worked first hand with many people who have experienced some of the most difficult things that life could have thrown at them, and at the end of the day they're still able to smile. Their wounds may not be healed, but they are able to find the strength to move forward.

Beauty and Biology

I think Dutton's talk is very captivating and succinct with the perfect amount of humor. However, upon reflection of his theory about beauty and how our understanding and acceptance of beauty are things determined by our human biology, I found myself in disagreement with the general ideology behind such theory past a certain extent.

One of his concluding remarks caught my attention and really seemed to bring me full circle with my own final reaction and thoughts. He stated, "the next time you pass by a jewelry shop window displaying a beautifully cut, teardrop-shaped stone, don't be so sure it's your culture telling you that sparkling jewel is beautiful."

When I heard him say this my immediate reaction was to scrunch my face and tilt my head as if I was saying, "huh?" I found it initially baffling and I think this is because he said it with such conviction that I felt there wasn't much space for me to consider a breadth of different perspectives to have, let alone consider my own. I watched the video again and came to the same observation that the intensity of his conviction throws me off and that once I sit with the ideas he lays out, I tend to disagree with them as they challenge my general values of what I hold to be true about human existence and what we individually make of beauty in our lives.

To me, culture and the environments in which we reside hold a tremendous influence in shaping individuals and what they each make of their lives, their existence, and what they value. More specifically, I believe greatly in the power of one's subjective experience at any given point in time. To hear Dutton kind of throw emotions and feelings into the cauldron of his strictly biology-based broth was a little unsettling for me because I didn't feel like he made a case for where exactly human subjectivities come into play when discussing beauty.

I also think it was quite bold and risky even to make such wide assumptions and generalizations about what people find beautiful. While I realize one of the biggest challenges to any theory is it being applicable and relevant to the entirety of its subjects, Dutton's completely skimps over the reality of individualization. If someone were to take a widespread survey called, "Is This Beautiful?" while only demonstrating or showing things that are widely regarded to be "universally" beautiful, the number of yes's would obviously support the claim. (Take Dutton's use of the "ideal savannah landscape" for example.) If the things demonstrated or shown were things that aren't necessarily popular across a wide expanse of people, such as the sport of bullfighting or lumpy stalagmites in a cave, there might be less of a unanimous outcome favoring their beauty. Dutton's theory does not take into account the truly infinite different factors, of which many are cultural factors, in a single person's life that can and will shape their own unique perspectives and understandings of what is beautiful to him/her.

I'm not completely denying the science/biology aspect that Dutton is grounding his theory in. As I said before, I think I agree with it up to a certain extent. The cutoff for me seems to be when he tries to apply the theory so broadly that it neglects the necessity to consider and incorporate individuality. Yes, I think all humans and our human nature is enabled and extended by our ancestral, biological capacity to discern and act upon things that stimulate and satisfy us. But to generalize and jump right over the factors of people's unique experiences that, arguably, are shaped and even determined by cultural influences is wrong to me and what I hold to be true about humans and their interpretations of the world around us.