I scoff at the claim people make concerning the debate between "scientists based on evidence" and creationists often referred to as religious people (which is a wrong term to group these people by the way). During our conversation on Gieryn in class today one of my colleagues made the claim, "well if science is constantly up for debate, what's the difference between creationists’ arguments?" My response: nothing -- and that is why I laugh. One of the things we have failed to mention in our discussions of upstream and downstream work is the human capacity for creation itself. Our methods of measurement, mathematics itself, our ways of finding evidence, our ways of framing and supporting that evidence, and the actual things we investigate (chemical concoctions, etc.) are essentially "made" through the human capacity for creation whether done collectively or individually and with a little word the USA LOVES to use -- autonomous decision making. So wouldn't it be obvious to assume that claims about the world are "made" based on what Kosso has pinpointed -- internal beliefs, previous beliefs about the world, views, morals and standards THROUGH an idea of creationism and/or "science based on evident"? Yes. Why? Because humans, themselves, are very active participants of creationism.
The truth is, God created us in His image so what He does, we essentially have the capacity to do as well -- certainly not on the same scale, rather the essential nature of creation is something we share with Him, like Him...as well as the capacity for free will to make what we want, say what we want, and do what we want (autonomy). So really, the intelligent design is AMAZING because we can only go so far until we come full circle to the reality of things -- everything is up for grabs, in dispute because....
We created it.
We didn't create nature, but the things IN nature, how we use it, how we go about looking at it, instruments used to observe, etc....we created it all. We use/d our capacity for creation using imagination, reason, argument, curiosity and the like to come up with ways of measurement and observation, arguments and ways of finding and using supporting evidence that is enacted synonymously, used together with and in Nature and its principles of existence that God created and established.
There is no difference.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Answer Book
As someone who would fit into the category of a "realist," I felt it important to explain my reasoning in why the asnwer book is so important. in a world that is consistently workable yet fallible in so many ways, it seems as if the notion of unanswered questions doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea. After all, things work. Rockets do fly, sattelites are in the air, buildings are built, cars drive across bridges, medicine treats illness, pain goes away, cures are discovered, and in some cases lives are saved. Every now and then, we experience flukess -- times when rockets disentegrate in the air, bridges fall, buildings fail when they weren't supposed to, pain doesn't go away, and illnesses still remain. For the sake of my readers, I will attempt to state my arguments in a fairly concise fashion....These are the reasons why reading the answer book is important and most workable:
1.) EVERYONE would love having the answer book and coming to terms with answers that were once unknown.
It's a matter of fact that people enjoy finding out the absolute truth on something or someone. There is a feeling of accomplishment, a feeling of "now I can move on," a feeling of gratitude, and an assurance that helps to add confidence and stability. Psychology alone tells us this truth. Having the answer book readily accessible would be of everyone's benefit as things would become more than workable, but stable and assured.
2.) Having the answer book would keep our track record clean, except in cases of "Screw-ups" of method and execution.
When someone has the right answer, it is more than possible to build something, to do something, to enjoy something, and to always answer the question. Could you imagine what life would be like if we knew the EXACT coordinates to every planet's location, how it changed, the exact force of gravity, exact location of the different atmospheres, and the exact understanding of what the universe is composed of. Could you imagine the doors that would open in terms of opportunity? Could you imagine if we understood every aspect of mathematics, why it was created, how it is created, and the exact answers to every problem? Our efforts would be flawless UNLESS laziness set in. We'd know exactly who to blame, we'd know exactly what to do in almost every circumstance. Rockets would launch with perfect smooth sailing.
Another example to consider is medicine. If we understood exactly how the human body works with no doubts, and we understood exactly how checmicals responded to those that are present in the human body, and the relationships between them, perhaps we could come up with perfect medicines. Instead of medicine killing thousands of people each year, it would heal. Instead of medicine treating one thing yet damaging another (Ibprofen, for example, treats inflammation and gets rid of pain, but compromises the very structure of your stomach and if taken over a long period of time can increase chances of stroke and heart attack -- that's closer to death!!!! :-\ !! ), medicine could possibly accomplish everything we want it to do, treat the problem and leave us healthy and ready to go...not dependent, not damaged.
These are only two reasons why I consider the answer book to be very important. At the same time, I have settled with the fact that God hasn't revealed some things to us, which is ok. He is perfect and so I'm comfortable with not knowing everything and knowing the exact answers...however I do look forward to the day when perfection is a matter of everyday existence instead of a "best-guessing" game.
1.) EVERYONE would love having the answer book and coming to terms with answers that were once unknown.
It's a matter of fact that people enjoy finding out the absolute truth on something or someone. There is a feeling of accomplishment, a feeling of "now I can move on," a feeling of gratitude, and an assurance that helps to add confidence and stability. Psychology alone tells us this truth. Having the answer book readily accessible would be of everyone's benefit as things would become more than workable, but stable and assured.
2.) Having the answer book would keep our track record clean, except in cases of "Screw-ups" of method and execution.
When someone has the right answer, it is more than possible to build something, to do something, to enjoy something, and to always answer the question. Could you imagine what life would be like if we knew the EXACT coordinates to every planet's location, how it changed, the exact force of gravity, exact location of the different atmospheres, and the exact understanding of what the universe is composed of. Could you imagine the doors that would open in terms of opportunity? Could you imagine if we understood every aspect of mathematics, why it was created, how it is created, and the exact answers to every problem? Our efforts would be flawless UNLESS laziness set in. We'd know exactly who to blame, we'd know exactly what to do in almost every circumstance. Rockets would launch with perfect smooth sailing.
Another example to consider is medicine. If we understood exactly how the human body works with no doubts, and we understood exactly how checmicals responded to those that are present in the human body, and the relationships between them, perhaps we could come up with perfect medicines. Instead of medicine killing thousands of people each year, it would heal. Instead of medicine treating one thing yet damaging another (Ibprofen, for example, treats inflammation and gets rid of pain, but compromises the very structure of your stomach and if taken over a long period of time can increase chances of stroke and heart attack -- that's closer to death!!!! :-\ !! ), medicine could possibly accomplish everything we want it to do, treat the problem and leave us healthy and ready to go...not dependent, not damaged.
These are only two reasons why I consider the answer book to be very important. At the same time, I have settled with the fact that God hasn't revealed some things to us, which is ok. He is perfect and so I'm comfortable with not knowing everything and knowing the exact answers...however I do look forward to the day when perfection is a matter of everyday existence instead of a "best-guessing" game.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Laboratories - Latour Chap. 2
Moving from the representations of scientists work, we now come to the locations. This is a very interesting ordeal, here. Considering the various mobilization efforts and executions of information the world employs, to arrive at the very spot where ideas are thought of, tested, challenged, re-created, and primarily defined is a privilege. I raise my glass (of grape juice) to Latour, "Thank you for giving me a glance into this world. To Latour!"
At this point, I feel a dissenter is basically at a complete loss in this stage of "dissenting" as I will call it. He has gone through multiple different avenues to access crucial and pertinent information, often running into black boxes and/or supporters of these black boxes. As he now comes to the place where ideas originate and are tested, defined and executed, we, the watchers see very many different things. I'd like to expound on my thinking a little bit about these issues:
Inscriptions - A place where the dissenter encounters information that has been gathered via instruments, and/or different things and has been documented in support of the hypotheses/theories being tested. This process is interesting to me because it puts things into perspective with respect to the reality of scientists work and bring the invisible and unrepresented information into perspective that is visible, readable, measurable, and - for lack of better terms - interact-able. I've come to realize that inscription are crucial to the process of mobilization -- without inscriptions, people wouldn't really have anything to read, thus nothing to refer to, thus nothing to support, thus the non-making of black boxes.
Spokesmen and women - I always realized the importance of someone acting as a primary force to drive the progress of some new action or theory, but here Latour really brought things to life. As the ones who don't speak, the hypotheses and new ideas have no choice BUT to have someone speak for them in order to become public and useful for others to use.
Trials of Strength - This is the primary way of executing what Kosso defines as objectivity. New ypotheses and ideas , and discoveries from the like are tested under the scrutiny and pessimism of other actors who are unaware of these findings. Question, after question, after question, after question is thrown about various different elements that act as support to new discoveries. Without this process, new ideas and new discoveries are nothing. Or as my fellow tutor puts it, "you get laughed out of the building." Trials of strength really embody this process of figuring out which to throw out and which to not throw out.
Borrowing from other black boxes - This is the place where we can really see a connection between Latour and Kosso's auxiliary theories. The truth is, no matter how much we try to be the genius who comes with new ideas we neccessarily can't because they are tied into many different theories abotu the world that already exist. We are trained and brought up to believe certain things about the world and it is the use of these things that we come to understand or think about new ideas. Even those that are being tested in counter-laboratories.
Making actors betray their representatives - This is an itneresting new concept that I never thought about, and quite honestly, I think it is intriguing. I don't think that it is a key component to the dissenting process, however.
For the sake of writing I will stop here and touch on the other subjects later. As a partial conclusion, I am beginning to see the incredible process dissenters have to go through in order to dive into the upstream side of things. It is interesting. It is intriguing and it is intense. Basically, i will re-think diving into dissension opinions when I am faced with new issues in the world. There is a huge notion of WORK -- a four letter-word -- that comes along with dissension. I see why Latour says the dissenter either has to walk out or be prepared to do a whoooole lot of work and spend money in the meantime trying to enact these processes . I prefer to walk out!
At this point, I feel a dissenter is basically at a complete loss in this stage of "dissenting" as I will call it. He has gone through multiple different avenues to access crucial and pertinent information, often running into black boxes and/or supporters of these black boxes. As he now comes to the place where ideas originate and are tested, defined and executed, we, the watchers see very many different things. I'd like to expound on my thinking a little bit about these issues:
Inscriptions - A place where the dissenter encounters information that has been gathered via instruments, and/or different things and has been documented in support of the hypotheses/theories being tested. This process is interesting to me because it puts things into perspective with respect to the reality of scientists work and bring the invisible and unrepresented information into perspective that is visible, readable, measurable, and - for lack of better terms - interact-able. I've come to realize that inscription are crucial to the process of mobilization -- without inscriptions, people wouldn't really have anything to read, thus nothing to refer to, thus nothing to support, thus the non-making of black boxes.
Spokesmen and women - I always realized the importance of someone acting as a primary force to drive the progress of some new action or theory, but here Latour really brought things to life. As the ones who don't speak, the hypotheses and new ideas have no choice BUT to have someone speak for them in order to become public and useful for others to use.
Trials of Strength - This is the primary way of executing what Kosso defines as objectivity. New ypotheses and ideas , and discoveries from the like are tested under the scrutiny and pessimism of other actors who are unaware of these findings. Question, after question, after question, after question is thrown about various different elements that act as support to new discoveries. Without this process, new ideas and new discoveries are nothing. Or as my fellow tutor puts it, "you get laughed out of the building." Trials of strength really embody this process of figuring out which to throw out and which to not throw out.
Borrowing from other black boxes - This is the place where we can really see a connection between Latour and Kosso's auxiliary theories. The truth is, no matter how much we try to be the genius who comes with new ideas we neccessarily can't because they are tied into many different theories abotu the world that already exist. We are trained and brought up to believe certain things about the world and it is the use of these things that we come to understand or think about new ideas. Even those that are being tested in counter-laboratories.
Making actors betray their representatives - This is an itneresting new concept that I never thought about, and quite honestly, I think it is intriguing. I don't think that it is a key component to the dissenting process, however.
For the sake of writing I will stop here and touch on the other subjects later. As a partial conclusion, I am beginning to see the incredible process dissenters have to go through in order to dive into the upstream side of things. It is interesting. It is intriguing and it is intense. Basically, i will re-think diving into dissension opinions when I am faced with new issues in the world. There is a huge notion of WORK -- a four letter-word -- that comes along with dissension. I see why Latour says the dissenter either has to walk out or be prepared to do a whoooole lot of work and spend money in the meantime trying to enact these processes . I prefer to walk out!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Kosso Chapter 7 Reflections
Kosso strikes again. I really enjoy this book.
pg. 124, "Observations...are themselves, assertive beliefs...they are described and justified under the influence of other beliefs...other assertive claims within our awareness...always comparing theory against theory...are not avoidable complications..."
pg. 125, "In science, no one ever gets a look at the answer key."
Can we really find security in the notion of justification as coherence, if the "cohered" is a bunch of theories unable to be verified in an answer key? Kosso, in Chapter 7, makes the argument that coherence is indicative of truth. Sure, this may be so....I would love to believe that -- but I am so unsettled with the knowledge that people walk around with this supposed trophy of science that is incscripted with the words "science discovers truth" and/or "science is truth". Why, because other scientists understand a very different philosophical viewpoint...they say that the underlying philosophy of science is the fact that "we really can't discover truth. Instead, we can discover things that cohere with our current theories that we believe to be true, but aren't really sure because we don't have access to the answer key." These are very fundamentally different positions being held within the same field. There is a very popular statement within the culture of God, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." With very different fundamental beliefs...who knows what's really going on behind the scenes? It kind of scares me that the very foundation of science is divided in such a way. Sure The Church is divided on issues, but in the notion of its existence, the very fibers of its being, are a few foundational principles that we agree on that keep us standing: Our very existence is based off of the acknowledgement of the truth of the existence of God our Creator and His love for us by acting in that love and sending His Son, Jesus, to bridge the gap between Himself and His Creations (humans). That's the one thing that we ALL agree on no matter how differently we stand on different issues. This is the one fact that we all know and agree to, which is the very first and most crucial -- metaphorically speaking -- atomic building block of the elements that make us who we are. It has kept and keeps His kingdom standing in the earth for thousands of years, continuing to grow and that extends into eternity and beyond -- despite other influences, anger, contention, and social change. It goes beyond even the universe!
But to prevent myself from digging deeper into that subject matter, allow me to conclude with Kosso's -- what I like to call -- new definition of objectivity. I mean, just in googling the definition of objectivity, I saw a load of very different interpretations mostly referring to the ones studying the predicament. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:objectivity&ei=l4kHSuaxKKDqtQPc55HsAQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
To hear Kosso explain and define objectivity the way he does, is hilarious. I feel that it helps to pinpoint the exact meaning of objectivity -- insofar as human reason and understanding allow -- a meaning that, even through careful and attentive cross-examination and attack comes, will withstand. "An attitude of openness to challenge...." and as Kuhn adds, "...from different paradigms that include different language, scientific procedure, and "good-bad" criteria for evaluation." This claim is so bold and amazes me that it shines such true light of the truth, really.
Just as a post-script I will say, I'm happy to see that Kosso admits to how science can be wrong in chapter 7. It's comforting...as a human endeavor influenced by MANY things -- as Latour explains -- humanly speaking, it is VERY VERY VERY hard to make completely accurate assertions of the world; to take it a step further, without God. What's funny is, we talked about this notion in our Business Ethics class. Science was born out of the desire for people to get away from having to "consult" the Creator. It's hilarious that it now runs into these predicaments and makes the philosophical discoveries they have made -- "we can't get to the truth". When all the while, He was just seeking a heart-felt effort to know Him and His creation. He gladly gives answers. I'm an example of that.
pg. 124, "Observations...are themselves, assertive beliefs...they are described and justified under the influence of other beliefs...other assertive claims within our awareness...always comparing theory against theory...are not avoidable complications..."
pg. 125, "In science, no one ever gets a look at the answer key."
pg.127, "Effects are all we have to work with."
Perhaps I'm being a bit of a hard-head but I cannot help but to ask this question: if all we have to ask about the unobservables/lack of ability to discover the "correspondence-to-the-facts truth" is based on what we currently know (our inferences and assertive beliefs also known as theoretical claims), or what Kosso describes as being stuck at the effects end of the chain even though we are interested in the causal end, how can we then make the predictions -- especially in cases of low-levels of observability, i.e. cosmic activity, atomic activity, or the like -- that "effect x is indicative of cause y?" Is it really fair to say that we would have the ability to predict effect x, based off of cause y...if we do not understand cause y, but rather only are aware of its certain features?Can we really find security in the notion of justification as coherence, if the "cohered" is a bunch of theories unable to be verified in an answer key? Kosso, in Chapter 7, makes the argument that coherence is indicative of truth. Sure, this may be so....I would love to believe that -- but I am so unsettled with the knowledge that people walk around with this supposed trophy of science that is incscripted with the words "science discovers truth" and/or "science is truth". Why, because other scientists understand a very different philosophical viewpoint...they say that the underlying philosophy of science is the fact that "we really can't discover truth. Instead, we can discover things that cohere with our current theories that we believe to be true, but aren't really sure because we don't have access to the answer key." These are very fundamentally different positions being held within the same field. There is a very popular statement within the culture of God, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand." With very different fundamental beliefs...who knows what's really going on behind the scenes? It kind of scares me that the very foundation of science is divided in such a way. Sure The Church is divided on issues, but in the notion of its existence, the very fibers of its being, are a few foundational principles that we agree on that keep us standing: Our very existence is based off of the acknowledgement of the truth of the existence of God our Creator and His love for us by acting in that love and sending His Son, Jesus, to bridge the gap between Himself and His Creations (humans). That's the one thing that we ALL agree on no matter how differently we stand on different issues. This is the one fact that we all know and agree to, which is the very first and most crucial -- metaphorically speaking -- atomic building block of the elements that make us who we are. It has kept and keeps His kingdom standing in the earth for thousands of years, continuing to grow and that extends into eternity and beyond -- despite other influences, anger, contention, and social change. It goes beyond even the universe!
But to prevent myself from digging deeper into that subject matter, allow me to conclude with Kosso's -- what I like to call -- new definition of objectivity. I mean, just in googling the definition of objectivity, I saw a load of very different interpretations mostly referring to the ones studying the predicament. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:objectivity&ei=l4kHSuaxKKDqtQPc55HsAQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
To hear Kosso explain and define objectivity the way he does, is hilarious. I feel that it helps to pinpoint the exact meaning of objectivity -- insofar as human reason and understanding allow -- a meaning that, even through careful and attentive cross-examination and attack comes, will withstand. "An attitude of openness to challenge...." and as Kuhn adds, "...from different paradigms that include different language, scientific procedure, and "good-bad" criteria for evaluation." This claim is so bold and amazes me that it shines such true light of the truth, really.
Just as a post-script I will say, I'm happy to see that Kosso admits to how science can be wrong in chapter 7. It's comforting...as a human endeavor influenced by MANY things -- as Latour explains -- humanly speaking, it is VERY VERY VERY hard to make completely accurate assertions of the world; to take it a step further, without God. What's funny is, we talked about this notion in our Business Ethics class. Science was born out of the desire for people to get away from having to "consult" the Creator. It's hilarious that it now runs into these predicaments and makes the philosophical discoveries they have made -- "we can't get to the truth". When all the while, He was just seeking a heart-felt effort to know Him and His creation. He gladly gives answers. I'm an example of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
