User talk:GaryFisher - Revision history

Oborn at 08:30, 4 August 2010

2010-08-04T08:30:30Z

Oborn at 08:29, 4 August 2010

2010-08-04T08:29:26Z

Oborn at 08:12, 4 August 2010

2010-08-04T08:12:17Z

Oborn at 22:52, 3 August 2010

2010-08-03T22:52:09Z

Oborn at 22:51, 3 August 2010

2010-08-03T22:51:35Z

Oborn at 22:51, 3 August 2010

2010-08-03T22:51:08Z

Oborn at 16:40, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T16:40:09Z

Oborn at 16:24, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T16:24:19Z

Oborn at 16:23, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T16:23:28Z

Oborn at 16:22, 30 July 2010

2010-07-30T16:22:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 4 August 2010
Line 149:		Line 149:


−	"We need to resist the notion that science provides a special, infallible objective, static body of knowledge or a precise tool for accurate measurement floating above the mundane world of values, opinions, and agendas -- timeless, acontextual, arhetorical, certain. We need to refuse the distinctly male, imperial project of a unified ~~sceince~~ that masquerades as the inexorable March of Progress. ~~Aand~~ we also need to reconstruct and reclaim science and scientific inquiry." [22]	+	"We need to resist the notion that science provides a special, infallible objective, static body of knowledge or a precise tool for accurate measurement floating above the mundane world of values, opinions, and agendas -- timeless, acontextual, arhetorical, certain. We need to refuse the distinctly male, imperial project of a unified science that masquerades as the inexorable March of Progress. And we also need to reconstruct and reclaim science and scientific inquiry." [22]

	[22] Chris W. Gallagher, University of Nebraska, quoted in JAC, vol. 28, Numbers 3 & 4, p. 693. Editor, Lynn Worsham. Inside front cover states: "JAC is published with generous financial support from Idaho State University."		[22] Chris W. Gallagher, University of Nebraska, quoted in JAC, vol. 28, Numbers 3 & 4, p. 693. Editor, Lynn Worsham. Inside front cover states: "JAC is published with generous financial support from Idaho State University."

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 4 August 2010
Line 147:		Line 147:

	[21] Gary A. Olson, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Idaho State University, quoted in JAC, vol. 28, numbers 3&4, p. 586.		[21] Gary A. Olson, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Idaho State University, quoted in JAC, vol. 28, numbers 3&4, p. 586.
		+
		+
		+	"We need to resist the notion that science provides a special, infallible objective, static body of knowledge or a precise tool for accurate measurement floating above the mundane world of values, opinions, and agendas -- timeless, acontextual, arhetorical, certain. We need to refuse the distinctly male, imperial project of a unified sceince that masquerades as the inexorable March of Progress. Aand we also need to reconstruct and reclaim science and scientific inquiry." [22]
		+
		+	[22] Chris W. Gallagher, University of Nebraska, quoted in JAC, vol. 28, Numbers 3 & 4, p. 693. Editor, Lynn Worsham. Inside front cover states: "JAC is published with generous financial support from Idaho State University."

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 4 August 2010
Line 142:		Line 142:

	[20]Bruno Latour, Institut d'etudes politiques de Paris		[20]Bruno Latour, Institut d'etudes politiques de Paris
		+
		+
		+	"...the vast majority of theorists produce "difficult" prose because of the difficult intellectual work they have undertaken." [21]
		+
		+	[21] Gary A. Olson, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Idaho State University, quoted in JAC, vol. 28, numbers 3&4, p. 586.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *Neither is there any clear sense in which we can talk about scientific progress within the European tradition. On the contrary, science is characterized chiefly by its complicity in all the most negative and oppressive aspects of modern history: increasingly destructive warfare, environmental disasters, racism, sexism, eugenics, exploitation, alienation, and imperialism.
-*Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]"
+*Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." "[0]
 [0]Noretta Koertge, professor of the history and philosophy of science at Indiana University.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Post Modern References
-Although it is always hazardous to try to summarize any group's principles and purposes, the following are some noteworthy precepts that appear to be widely shared:
+"Although it is always hazardous to try to summarize any group's principles and purposes, the following are some noteworthy precepts that appear to be widely shared:
 *Every aspect of that complex set of enterprises that we call science, including, above all, its contents and results, is shaped by and can be understood only in its local historical and cultural context.
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *Neither is there any clear sense in which we can talk about scientific progress within the European tradition. On the contrary, science is characterized chiefly by its complicity in all the most negative and oppressive aspects of modern history: increasingly destructive warfare, environmental disasters, racism, sexism, eugenics, exploitation, alienation, and imperialism.
-*Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]
+*Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]"
 [0]Noretta Koertge, professor of the history and philosophy of science at Indiana University.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Although it is always hazardous to try to summarize any group's principles and purposes, the following are some noteworthy precepts that appear to be widely shared:
-  *Every aspect of that complex set of enterprises that we call science, including, above all, its contents and results, is shaped by and can be understood only in its local historical and cultural context.
+*Every aspect of that complex set of enterprises that we call science, including, above all, its contents and results, is shaped by and can be understood only in its local historical and cultural context.
-  *In particular, the products of scientific inquiry, the so-called laws of nature, must always be viewed as social constructions. Their validity depends on the consensus of "experts" in just the same way as the legitimacy of a pope depends on a council of cardinals.
+*In particular, the products of scientific inquiry, the so-called laws of nature, must always be viewed as social constructions. Their validity depends on the consensus of "experts" in just the same way as the legitimacy of a pope depends on a council of cardinals.
-   *Although scientists typically succeed in arrogating special epistemic authority to themselves, scientific knowledge is just "one story among many." The more epistemological authority that science has in a given society, the more important it is to unmask its pretensions to be an enterprise dedicated to the pursuit of objective knowledge. Science must be "humbled."
+*Although scientists typically succeed in arrogating special epistemic authority to themselves, scientific knowledge is just "one story among many." The more epistemological authority that science has in a given society, the more important it is to unmask its pretensions to be an enterprise dedicated to the pursuit of objective knowledge. Science must be "humbled."
-  *Since the quest for objective knowledge is a quixotic one, the best way to appraise scientific claims is through the process of political evaluation. Since the "evidence" for a scientific claim is never conclusive and is always open to negotiation, the best way to evaluate scientific results is to ask who stands to benefit if the claim is taken to be true. Thus, for the citizen the key question about a scientific result should not be how well tested the claim is but, rather, Cui bono?
+*Since the quest for objective knowledge is a quixotic one, the best way to appraise scientific claims is through the process of political evaluation. Since the "evidence" for a scientific claim is never conclusive and is always open to negotiation, the best way to evaluate scientific results is to ask who stands to benefit if the claim is taken to be true. Thus, for the citizen the key question about a scientific result should not be how well tested the claim is but, rather, Cui bono?
-  *"Science is politics by other means": the results of scientific inquiry are profoundly and importantly shaped by the ideological agenda of powerful elites.
+*"Science is politics by other means": the results of scientific inquiry are profoundly and importantly shaped by the ideological agenda of powerful elites.
-  *There is no univocal sense in which the science of one society is better than that of another. In particular, Euroscience is not objectively superior to the various ethnosciences and shamanisms described by anthropologists or invented by Afrocentrists.
+*There is no univocal sense in which the science of one society is better than that of another. In particular, Euroscience is not objectively superior to the various ethnosciences and shamanisms described by anthropologists or invented by Afrocentrists.
-  *Neither is there any clear sense in which we can talk about scientific progress within the European tradition. On the contrary, science is characterized chiefly by its complicity in all the most negative and oppressive aspects of modern history: increasingly destructive warfare, environmental disasters, racism, sexism, eugenics, exploitation, alienation, and imperialism.
+*Neither is there any clear sense in which we can talk about scientific progress within the European tradition. On the contrary, science is characterized chiefly by its complicity in all the most negative and oppressive aspects of modern history: increasingly destructive warfare, environmental disasters, racism, sexism, eugenics, exploitation, alienation, and imperialism.
-  *Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]
+*Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]
 [0]Noretta Koertge, professor of the history and philosophy of science at Indiana University.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Although it is always hazardous to try to summarize any group's principles and purposes, the following are some noteworthy precepts that appear to be widely shared:
-   .Every aspect of that complex set of enterprises that we call science, including, above all, its contents and results, is shaped by and can be understood only in its local historical and cultural context.
-   .In particular, the products of scientific inquiry, the so-called laws of nature, must always be viewed as social constructions. Their validity depends on the consensus of "experts" in just the same way as the legitimacy of a pope depends on a council of cardinals.
+  *Every aspect of that complex set of enterprises that we call science, including, above all, its contents and results, is shaped by and can be understood only in its local historical and cultural context.
-  .Although scientists typically succeed in arrogating special epistemic authority to themselves, scientific knowledge is just "one story among many." the more epistemological authority that science has in a given society, the more importanat it is to unmask its pretensions to be an enterprise dedicated to the pursuit of objective knowledge. Science must be "humbled."
-   .Since the quest for objective knowledge is a quixotic one, the best way to appraise scientific claims is through the process of political evaluation. Since the "evidence" for a scientific claim is never conclusive and is always open to negotiation, the best way to evaluate scientific results is to ask who stands to benefit if the claim is taken to be true. Thus, for the citizen the key question about a scientific result should not be how well tested the claim is but, rather, Cui bono?
+   *Since the quest for objective knowledge is a quixotic one, the best way to appraise scientific claims is through the process of political evaluation. Since the "evidence" for a scientific claim is never conclusive and is always open to negotiation, the best way to evaluate scientific results is to ask who stands to benefit if the claim is taken to be true. Thus, for the citizen the key question about a scientific result should not be how well tested the claim is but, rather, Cui bono?
-   ."Science is politics by other means": the results of scientific inquiry are profoundly and importantly shaped by the ideological agenda of powerful elites.
+   *"Science is politics by other means": the results of scientific inquiry are profoundly and importantly shaped by the ideological agenda of powerful elites.
-   .There is no univocal sense in which the science of one society is better than that of another. In particular, Euroscience is not objectively superior to the various ethnosciences and shamanisms described by anthropologists or invented by Afrocentrists.
+   *There is no univocal sense in which the science of one society is better than that of another. In particular, Euroscience is not objectively superior to the various ethnosciences and shamanisms described by anthropologists or invented by Afrocentrists.
-   .Neither is there any clear sense in which we can talk about scientific progress within the European tradition. On the contrary, science is characterized chiefly by its complicity in all the most negative and oppressive aspects of modern history: increasingly destructive warfare, environmental disasters, racism, sexism, eugenics, exploitation, alienation, and imperialism.
+   *Neither is there any clear sense in which we can talk about scientific progress within the European tradition. On the contrary, science is characterized chiefly by its complicity in all the most negative and oppressive aspects of modern history: increasingly destructive warfare, environmental disasters, racism, sexism, eugenics, exploitation, alienation, and imperialism.
-   .Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientisits and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]
+   *Given the impossibility of scientific objectivity, it is futile to exhort scientists and policymakers to try harder to remove ideological bias from the practice of science. Instead, what we need to do is deliberately introduce "corrective biases" and "progressive political values" into science. There is a call for "emancipatory science" and "advocacy research." [0]
 [0]Noretta Koertge, professor of the history and philosophy of science at Indiana University.
@@ Line 128: / Line 131: @@
 [18]Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guttari