Reasoning

As I talked about last post we get to enmeshed within all of these controversies and our "experst" voices are lost. This is why I enjoyed this last reading by Ms. Sarah Whatmore. She talked of an ever-growing ever-more diversified group of people who have a say because the use of these technologies is being spread so widely throughout our society. We skepticize and trust with a taught line in the public because of the wire connected to our experts/scientists and public policy making. Once again not to say that we do not trust our scientist merely that they need to be watched . This problem however is the problem of excessive skepticism, but we already went over this. Once ago these disputes were settled by experts who just said what to do but with technology ever growing and everyone thinking that they are now experts it is harder to disperse the claims that keep pouring in. Our social enviroment will not let anything pass through without being looked at twice just to be safe. In regards to the enviroment many disputes need to be handled immediately which is just not possible in this day and age; unless our officials were to take an executive route. Which would still be ridiculed probably even more so. None-the-less we must reason through these disputes swiftly but surely in order to determine the best route and we must stop this excessive skepticism and learn to take the back seat as everyone more or less wants the best for the people.

What is Expertise?

It has been a long seven or so weeks now where our ideas all are drawing into one another but still we are looking at the approach in which to handle all of them. This blog is how do we determine expertise. In the case of the gulf where massive amounts of oil leaked into our oceans and are even now spreading up the east coast who handles such issues. Is it the fishermen who are experts in some parts of the gulf or do we leave this up to the scientists who have the degree to back their claims up. We are hitting what are readings talked about as "technical decision making", where there is a clash between science and technology versus the public domain. In these areas of discussion such as the gulf both parties have considerable contributions to make and we cannot discount either. So what course of actions do we take and still keep our skepticism in mind as if to not be to impulsive but to just sift through the here say. Just as the reading says our skepticism is not whether we can trust scientist but rather if their claims are more right than many of the fishermen claims. Throughout all of these issues we are just trying to figure out what is the correct course of action to take. Truth-expertise and experience is what we are looking for there is much of this to be found in the public domain and most likely much more in the realm of the play makers. Why not let the play makers decide who comes in to the conference room to speak their piece either way we must cohere together fast before situations like this given one rise too quickly and cannot be fixed because our expertise was too plentiful.

Representations

Now in our seventh week of class or so the discussion of representations comes into play once again. Having about four issues that come into mind when running through this idea the elements that do are alliances meaning who's backing who, public representations, status of claims, and how these products go back to involved experts. All of these elements briefly described are concerned with framing, the mechanisms of engagement, and the possibility of excessive skepticism. Now in discussing representations in any area of expertise we have to look at the play makers just as I have posted before. Who exactly is aligned with who, referring to those that are in power and which side they line up on. If we have play makers lined up together for an alternate purpose that distorts the way an issue really looks then we have a problem because the public will be mislead onto that side. In talking about this the problem of the erosion of public trust comes into play and the element of excessive skepticism. The more we see these play makers involved in private funding the more skepticism and suspicion arises possibly rightfully so. The public is on the receiving end of information so framing comes into play as well as representations because the mob will decide how things play out no matter who the play makers are they can merely manipulate and guide. How the play makers manipulate is when they tamper with our beliefs in culture, or how society is set up and run also our politics and economics. These assemblages form the representations and often can have alterior motives. The ideas are aimed at policy makers and research institutions, etc. meaning the agencies who shift and make these ideas come to life. This happens within these assemblages. An eye must be kept out on large issues so that the truth is available in its purest form without manipulation and without being distorted. So the representations may not be true, but the balance of the public skepticism may keep them on their heels so just as not to cheat up on the line.

Political Analysis and Corporate Greed

Although this may not be completely on topic it is an area that I feel needs to be addressed within this country and one that I am very passionate about. After our readings for the past couple week, I am the most fond of Ms. Bennett. I liked that reading because it had a focus on corporate greed and how we need to regulate these power players. As i said in prior posts we need to watch the play makers in the realm of the scientists who are they backed by may determine what claims they make. As you may recall Professor Flower one of my essays last year was on this topic entitled, " Derailing the money train". To start off the essay I quoted Woodrow Wilson in saying, " The laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak...". In this essay the focus is on corporatism and referred a lot to the ideas of Thomas Hartmann, Bill Moyers ,and Lappe; which obviously you are familiar with. As we talk about these actor networks I see these players also being able to tie into the debate we have currently in class. In this day and age our political judgement and awareness is clouded by so many claims being made by all types of diff. people and players. We see the sciences becoming more mainstream and having greater participation by the public. In doing so the actor networks become bigger and even more complicated; tougher to sift through the b.s. you might say. Through all of this coming about we must remember who is connected and why certain ideas are being pushed in the manner they are and why certain assemblages are grouped together. There are no coincidence's so the transmission of these ideas must be looked at with everyone's eyes open. Someone once told me to believe half of what you've seen and none of what you've heard.

Connections and Synapses

In this post I want to discuss how the connections between politics and science and everything else always can tie into one another. All of the elements we talk about everyday in our class discussions seem to connect more each time. Facts seem to circulate within and around eachother just as we talked of them running in packs before. Latour tells us that the notion of science being isolated from the rest of the world will no doubt be meaningless sooner or later. My question is, why is science been separate? Which or what powers have been holding this back. I see many technicalities and once exceptions threading themselves together and even if these notions can be manipulated they still seem to be in one vessel. I am left wondering what is the right way to approach these priciples and how do we know which to pay attention to. You may recall my prior postings when I discussed who was in power and what ideals will play out, keeping an eye on who is backing the ideas. Also if the media or people/mob get ahold of such ideas will they become intertwined in a fad that lacks the real truth. This is not unthinkable as we have seen this multiple times in the past. It is strange to think about the notion of science and society altogether and the conception of this is beyond explanation for some. The world of science is not far off as we see are world crumbling due to the pollution of our species, these connection become more apparent as sooner than later we will have to call on our playmakers in science to provide a suitable approach.

A Theoretical Approach

As our readings in this past section focus on Kosso's ideas I feel it is important to address where he stands in this mix. Mr. Kosso tends to explain one thing and make a generalization that the other will occur. He also states that each theory has a different meaning and may have more than one in that of itself. In class we also discussed theories running in packs and believing that something will occur can inthe end make that outcome occur; just because you made it so. Now theoretical claims are often made on things I am unable to observe, but they have basis behind them ( Prof. Flower put this as remnants). The first advance in these theories is hypothetical but as they are gradually tested over and over, and if still stand true then it becomes law. Science today is often based upon the knowledge of these theories the testing of them is what separates good theories from quackery. Kosso claims however that theories run in a linear path and all flow together. I agree in this until we get downstream where the claims and answers are very cut and dry. Sure upstream they ran linear but I feel as though when we get down to it all there will be a white and black; that is of course if we do solve such problems. I have read some of my peers' reviews and they seem to agree with kosso and Latour as well as I do in some of these ideas, but I also belive it is sort of a copout move to leave these ideas so broad and to just say that they intertwine. Once the smoke has cleared your stand must also be.

Scientific Power

When we talk of scientific power it is fairly clear where the power lies of course within the playmakers (scientists), but there was stir in class in recent sessions of the scientist claims and the scientists themselves being vulnerable. At times where humanity is at the brink scientist are not vulnerable at all in fact probably the exact opposite they may have the greatest power at this point. Who else will we look for guidance to it times of hardship. Of course scientists need support prior, during, and after their assessments have been made, because lets face it whoever has the most backing for their claims is going to emerge on top. We talked that the claims we make liken to a house being built on top of sand insisting that whoevers sand can stay together the longest will win. Claims are constantly being debunk and even if you would have to deal with A B and C plus 1 2 and 3 it seems that the power of scientist has very little to do with the general public. Sure they need support but the public is going to support someone in either case thats just the way things play out but the real power is within the scientists. Lets face it most of the general public will not be able to understand academia in its own language which makes the framing most important. The framing is done within the scientists which are backed and backed by who would be the next question. What are the objectives and goals of the persons backing such playmaker. Scientific power is a myth to the general public they cannot affect this in a way, it is not a myth within the scientific community though which will really play out where the future takes us. Scientific Power is held within the playmakers, they solely decide (with their backing/followers) where the next move is to be made.