Pretentious Crap

[nomadthethird]

Bruno Latour is leagues ahead of this discussion, which is being conducted on a boring, sophomoric level that is frankly not worth the word count.

Your posts are hardly illuminating, Josef, though you clearly flatter yourself that they are, while you make points that a fifth grader could easily make drunk with one hand tied behind their back. You flatter yourself in so many ways, really.

Besides, isn't Bruno Latour rather PRETENTIOUS? Being a Heidegger expert and all? I'm shocked to see someone as unpretentious as you even bringing him up.

 

[nomadthethird]

How ridiculously presumptuous. Are you seriously trying to insinuate, Josef, that people here haven't already discussed these matters inside and out?

We have. Millions of times. Do you think you're the first person to consider the ontico-political implications of science on Dissensus? Hardly. We've talked about them in terms of The Question Concerning Technology. We've talked about them in Badiou's terms. If I'm going to talk about this, in fact, I'd much rather discuss it with Poetix, or the late Gek-Opel, or Padraig/Waffle, all of whom have a firm grasp on these matters on the philosophical level on which I'm interested in considering them.

I'll pass on the Cliff's Notes caliber "discussions", thanks anyway.

 

[nomadthethird]

logic, rationality, the scientific method... it takes impressive short sightedness and willful ignorance to not realize that this entire system of knowledge occurs within the context of ideology (which in our age is invisible); and that all of it is motivated and tainted by particular socio-economic-political forces of the day.

How many trillions of times have Mr. Tea and I already discussed how ideology can and does often infect scientific studies and skew data and its interpretation on here?

In fact, did I not write my master's thesis on this topic? Journalism and media misrepresentations of scientific data. Yes I did.

How many hours have been spent on the part of me and others making this exact ZIZEKIAN point about ideology and capitalism on Dissensus? Hundreds.

No one on here disagrees with this. Except possibly Vimothy. And Josef K (who thinks Zizek is a fascist).

 

[nomadthethird]

At the major biomedical university where I worked, there was a researcher who had a cartoon blown up and taped to the door. It showed a person drinking an orange soda reading a newspaper that said in large letters "Orange Soda Prevents Cancer", and the person reading the newspaper exclaiming "I can't believe I didn't know all along!" For the punchline, there was an asterisk by the headline and the words RESEARCH FUNDED BY PEPSI, INC. ran along the bottom.

The all-pervasive reach of ideology (especially as regards funding of research) was a constant topic of discussions, lectures, conferences, and interpersonal discussions at this university. As scientists, and above all as professionals, everyone there was striving for the best possible results, the best possible outcomes, and the least possible outside influence or bias in their work. No one is more aware of the pitfalls that science can fall into than scientists are! They work with them everyday.

The idea that scientists are consciously creating some sort of orthodoxy, and have no clue that ideology plays a role in research, is absurd.

I did fundraising for RU's annual "Women & Science" event, the entire point of which was to raise awareness of the bias in scientific institutions AGAINST female researchers and to promote equal opportunities for females in the sciences. This is hardly a unique program.

 

[josef k.]

Zzzzzzzzz.....

 

[zhao]

nomad, so you don't think the criticism me and Josef are bringing up is valid, or is worth talking about -- it's all bullshit so we should just all shut up? how nice and how scientific of you, however silly my or his agenda is or isn't, to dissuade discourse.

also, not to mention predictability and boorishness, do you not see how your constant condescension and rudeness make you look exactly like a loudmouthed little brat, and not the image of authority-on-every-subject which you attempt to portray? i could care less if some graduate student is talking down at me, but really, it is a disservice to both yourself and the statements you make.

and since you are constantly bring up these professional scientists you have worked with, which you think is proof of the fact that you know what you are talking about, and that everyone else is "talking out of their ass", let me tell you about my personal relationship to science:

i grew up with 2 quantum, theoretical physicists. my father was a lead researcher on one of the first super-colliding atom smashers in Fortworth, Texas. my mother has gradually come to focus on more practical side of her field, her last big project being the design of the digital film projector for Texas Instruments, which have become ubiquitous in all major theaters since around 2004. one of my uncles was a world reknowned astronomer, and discovered a major star in 1984. another uncle has been a lead engineer for General Motors for the past 15 years. my grandfather on my mother's side was a top jet propulsion expert in Beijing, and had a life long career of designing the engines of military fighters.

i could go on but in short, i have been constantly around scientists all 33 years of my life - nearly all the friends of my parents are also scientists - and whatever else i may be doing, i am certainly not "talking out of my ass" when i give an assessment and opinion of the state of Science as a narrative and system of knowledge.

so anyway, no i don't think the self criticality of the scientific community, as great as it is, fully takes into account the larger picture of the massive influence of the ideological frame work of entire cultures, and indeed entire civilizations, on their proposed "objectivity", beyond the immediately visible cases of corporate money bias.

my father is an amazing example of this: an expert in his field, but his mind is full of indoctrination, and insists on viewing the world through a myopic, dogmatic, orthodox Scientific lens. in fact, he is not capable of doing anything else, as his positions are entirely calcified and his brain completely washed by ideology...

 

[IdleRich]

Science is conducted through institutional protocols which work to determine the scope of its enterprise. This doesn't discredit science, but it does stress that science is a practice which occurs inside certain conditions, and politics, which are not necessarily devoted to trying to understand the world better, but rather to other things - for instance, such as navigating institutional protocols.

That's "science" in the specific sense as how it is now, not "science" in the general sense that I just described.

 

[swears]

swears, you are missing the point. entirely.

Which of your points am I missing? The tediously obvious ones? "science can be biased by commercial and political concerns and hey guyz, zhao sez u should rly try and sort that out, you know"

Or the shriekingly hysterical ones?
"omg, evolutionary anthropologists are liek nazis!"

And you still haven't explained what "neo-darwinism" is yet. That should be a laugh.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Zzzzzzzzz.....

Think you can do better than that Josef...

 

[josef k.]

Yeah, but its like fighting homeless drunks. Even if you win, what do you win?

 

[Tentative Andy]

Some dregs of cheap wine?

 

[josef k.]

and a tin filled with the tobacco of harvested cigarette butts...

 

[Tentative Andy]

Mmmm mmmm, good.

*brb goan to find a homeless person to fight*

 

[josef k.]

That's "science" in the specific sense as how it is now, not "science" in the general sense that I just described.

To be sure, an important distinction. Science on the one hand, and techno-science on the other? With the latter corresponding to the instrumentalization of scientific knowledge, for some purpose or another (destroying the monster, making a play for prestige and authority, etc) and the former amounting to a genuine inquiry after knowledge?

EDIT: I also would like to note at this point that Arsenal are useless.

 

[nomadthethird]

I love this idea that science is this evil, orthodox force roaming free.

So, Zhao, who gets to be the gatekeeper in your view?

New Age mystics? Are they in a better "non-ideologically" tainted position than scientists are to critique science?

Or could it be philosophers? Who have been and are just as beholden to ideology as anyone else.

Hmmm.

Regardless of whether you would've wished your dad was more a more spiritually inclined person or not--who are these orthodox scientists and where do they practice?

See, what's especially funny in all of this is how science is actually kept radically in check by conservative forces.

Look at what happened to stem cell research, for fuck's sake! Within the first few, most important years, it was stalled almost to a complete halt by the U.S. government, which disallowed embryonic stem cell lines from being used (and these, at the time, were some of the only available lines). Of course, the argument was that this was a baby-killing abortion monster thing to do! George W Bush himself said so--destroying viable embryos is wrong. Except he forgot to mention that fertility clinics routinely create viable embryos only to later throw them in the trash. Fertility clinics routinely visited by the religious right.

So who gets to be the gatekeepers? Right now we've got the religious right policing science and keeping us from progressing in leaps and bounds with their hypocritical bullshit.

 

[nomadthethird]

Which of your points am I missing? The tediously obvious ones? "science can be biased by commercial and political concerns and hey guyz, zhao sez u should rly try and sort that out, you know"

Or the shriekingly hysterical ones?
"omg, evolutionary anthropologists are liek nazis!"

And you still haven't explained what "neo-darwinism" is yet. That should be a laugh.

But Swears, Zhao and Josef K are here to save us all from ourselves, and our own ignorance of the Evils of Science. *organ music plays, sinister laughs*

 

[nomadthethird]

nomad, so you don't think the criticism me and Josef are bringing up is valid, or is worth talking about -- it's all bullshit so we should just all shut up? how nice and how scientific of you, however silly my or his agenda is or isn't, to dissuade discourse.

also, not to mention predictability and boorishness, do you not see how your constant condescension and rudeness make you look exactly like a loudmouthed little brat, and not the image of authority-on-every-subject which you attempt to portray? i could care less if some graduate student is talking down at me, but really, it is a disservice to both yourself and the statements you make.

and since you are constantly bring up these professional scientists you have worked with, which you think is proof of the fact that you know what you are talking about, and that everyone else is "talking out of their ass", let me tell you about my personal relationship to science:

i grew up with 2 quantum, theoretical physicists. my father was a lead researcher on one of the first super-colliding atom smashers in Fortworth, Texas. my mother has gradually come to focus on more practical side of her field, her last big project being the design of the digital film projector for Texas Instruments, which have become ubiquitous in all major theaters since around 2004. one of my uncles was a world reknowned astronomer, and discovered a major star in 1984. another uncle has been a lead engineer for General Motors for the past 15 years. my grandfather on my mother's side was a top jet propulsion expert in Beijing, and had a life long career of designing the engines of military fighters.

i could go on but in short, i have been constantly around scientists all 33 years of my life - nearly all the friends of my parents are also scientists - and whatever else i may be doing, i am certainly not "talking out of my ass" when i give an assessment and opinion of the state of Science as a narrative and system of knowledge.

so anyway, no i don't think the self criticality of the scientific community, as great as it is, fully takes into account the larger picture of the massive influence of the ideological frame work of entire cultures, and indeed entire civilizations, on their proposed "objectivity", beyond the immediately visible cases of corporate money bias.

my father is an amazing example of this: an expert in his field, but his mind is full of indoctrination, and insists on viewing the world through a myopic, dogmatic, orthodox Scientific lens. in fact, he is not capable of doing anything else, as his positions are entirely calcified and his brain completely washed by ideology...

Nobody thinks science is "objective", it's just the best method we have for investigating the natural world.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you disagree with your father because you are yourself brainwashed by another, different ideology?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that your father's choice to believe in realism and materialism are not valid, and only your choices to believe in whatever you believe in are valid?

Sounds awfully judgmental and myopic to me...

 

[josef k.]

As is so often the case Nomad, you don't seem to understand the issue being discussed here.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes, I do understand Josef.

If scientists don't get to decide what is ethical for them to do as scientists, because they are too blinded by ideology, who does?

I'm curious who Zhao thinks is in a position to do this, since ideology is indeed "invisible" and it's everywhere.

 

[nomadthethird]

Science is already completely open to criticism, it's already beholden to tax payers and the political constituency of donors ethically, and academic science already operates according to near 100% transparency (the highest standards in any academic discipline) as regards numbers and data being public domain.

In my opinion, the first two are often impediments to science rather than saviours of it.

I'm all for criticism of science, but I also happen to think that the people who are in the best position to offer a critique of science are those who understand the science in question.

I could "critique" the work of a systems analyst but since I know nothing about computers it would be a fairly worthless, stupid bunch of generalizations.