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.