-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
STS-Oct-M16-Bouzid.rs3
225 lines (217 loc) · 12.4 KB
/
STS-Oct-M16-Bouzid.rs3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
<rst>
<header>
<relations>
<rel name="antithesis" type="rst" />
<rel name="background" type="rst" />
<rel name="circumstance" type="rst" />
<rel name="concession" type="rst" />
<rel name="condition" type="rst" />
<rel name="elaboration" type="rst" />
<rel name="enablement" type="rst" />
<rel name="evaluation" type="rst" />
<rel name="evidence" type="rst" />
<rel name="interpretation" type="rst" />
<rel name="justify" type="rst" />
<rel name="means" type="rst" />
<rel name="motivation" type="rst" />
<rel name="nonvolitional-cause" type="rst" />
<rel name="nonvolitional-result" type="rst" />
<rel name="otherwise" type="rst" />
<rel name="preparation" type="rst" />
<rel name="purpose" type="rst" />
<rel name="restatement" type="rst" />
<rel name="solutionhood" type="rst" />
<rel name="summary" type="rst" />
<rel name="unconditional" type="rst" />
<rel name="unless" type="rst" />
<rel name="unstated-relation" type="rst" />
<rel name="volitional-cause" type="rst" />
<rel name="volitional-result" type="rst" />
<rel name="rst" type="rst" />
<rel name="conjunction" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="contrast" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="disjunction" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="joint" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="list" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="restatement-mn" type="multinuc" />
<rel name="sequence" type="multinuc" />
</relations>
</header>
<body>
<segment id="1" parent="2" relname="preparation">
&gt;From LEE:</segment>
<segment id="2" parent="55" relname="span">
&gt; Indeed, FULLER has dichotomized STS unto extremes.
&gt; But I think Steve's 'pure type' reflexion is useful.
&gt; Do we, as STSers, polemicize the debate if
&gt; we claim disciplinary immunity for our research? On what basis can
&gt; we make that claim for ourselves, yet deny it to the 'hard sciences'?
&gt; Are we not as subject to constructed views of the universe as are they?
&gt; How is what 'interests' us different from what 'interests' the
&gt; 'physical' sciences? (cf. Malcolm Ashmore's _Reflexive Thesis_) How
&gt; can we ask the 'hard sciences' to be open to our own criticisms
&gt; and not be open to theirs? Ditto re: openess to 'external' normative
&gt; factors.</segment>
<segment id="3" parent="54" relname="span">
As far as I am concerned, the "reflexivity problem" is a non problem
(beyond a certain point, e.g., beyond one level of reflexion),</segment>
<segment id="4" parent="6" relname="condition">
and the more we dwell on it,</segment>
<segment id="6" parent="52" relname="span"> by that much we are wasting time.</segment>
<segment id="5" parent="7" relname="concession"> It's
a very nice academic question,</segment>
<segment id="7" parent="53" relname="span"> but a question that I think has been
inflated too much. </segment>
<segment id="8" parent="54" relname="summary"> It is time we let that big balloon float away.</segment>
<segment id="9" parent="79" relname="background">
Also, FULLER seems to be concerned a bit by the question of "expert".</segment>
<segment id="10" parent="58" relname="span">
We, STS-ers, or at least many within the field, have been haranguing
current science about the issue of experts:</segment>
<segment id="11" parent="57" relname="span"> they think they are
so smart, those scientists, above the fray, always a few inches
taller than the nearest fellow human, etc.,</segment>
<segment id="12" parent="11" relname="nonvolitional-result"> and what do we do
but turn into experts!</segment>
<segment id="13" parent="58" relname="elaboration"> and so forth.... </segment>
<segment id="14" parent="81" relname="span"> This too, I think, is
a non-issue. </segment>
<segment id="15" parent="60" relname="span"> I have no problem whatsover with the notion of
"experts". </segment>
<segment id="16" parent="59" relname="span"> There are lots of experts around--</segment>
<segment id="17" parent="16" relname="evaluation">and THANK GOD
FOR THEM!</segment>
<segment id="18" parent="84" relname="span"> It's not the notion of "expert" that should bother
us, per se,</segment>
<segment id="19" parent="61" relname="span"> but the notion that the expert has control and
TAKES THE INITIATIVE to define what is a problem, how to solve
it, and what counts as a solution. </segment>
<segment id="20" parent="83" relname="span"> That experts are allowed
to do that is what should bother us. </segment>
<segment id="21" parent="63" relname="concession"> In a more democratic
society, the expert still has his/her role to play:</segment>
<segment id="22" parent="23" relname="circumstance"> but,
the way I see it,</segment>
<segment id="23" parent="62" relname="span"> this expert would not be the one taking the
initiative,</segment>
<segment id="24" parent="63" relname="span"> but would be, as it were, at the service of
the larger populace. </segment>
<segment id="25" parent="86" relname="span"> We, STS-ers, then, can still be experts--given
the various sensitivities we have,</segment>
<segment id="26" parent="25" relname="elaboration"> and the knowledge we have
acquired about the way science works, etc., to be of service to
some segment of the public that wishes to enroll our help.</segment>
<segment id="27" parent="25" relname="elaboration">
Moreover, as concerned citizens, we should advertise our
skills and we should try to mobilise those we think should
start moving.</segment>
<segment id="28" parent="25" relname="volitional-result"> This way, we are more like entrepreneurs trying
to sell our ware than sententious, high-brow wisdom dispensers. </segment>
<segment id="29" parent="88" relname="span">
&gt; Thus, should we let the 'lay public' decide about how much, what, and
&gt; who, both in the 'natural' and the 'social' sciences, gets funding?</segment>
<segment id="30" parent="65" relname="span">
As a first goal, my belief is that we should forget about the "lay
public" for now. </segment>
<segment id="31" parent="67" relname="span"> It would be a hopeless task, I think, to try to
raise the level of consciousness of the public, or demystify the
image they have about science. </segment>
<segment id="32" parent="33" relname="condition"> But more than that: if we believed that
that is the way to go,</segment>
<segment id="33" parent="66" relname="span"> we would be betraying a pretty basic result
that us STS-ers hold dear: i.e., that it is not ideas that make things
as they are, but rather material configurations, power structures,
networks of interests, etc. </segment>
<segment id="34" parent="66" relname="nonvolitional-result"> To believe on the one hand that science
owes its strength to these solid, mundane, underlying forces, and then
at the same time to believe that you can change this state of affairs
by convincing, or via arguments, leads, I think, to an incoherent
position.</segment>
<segment id="35" parent="36" relname="preparation">
Solution? </segment>
<segment id="36" parent="89" relname="span"> In the first instance, we have to realize that we will
be able to do good on neither extremes: the elites (the upper crust,
those that directly define what counts for the policymaker), and the
population at large.</segment>
<segment id="37" parent="69" relname="span"> Our target should be those who can take our
message, use it to enhance their position and counter the status
quo. </segment>
<segment id="38" parent="71" relname="span"> I see at least one such possible group: the disenchanted
scientist, or engineer (and believe me, they are out there).</segment>
<segment id="39" parent="40" relname="condition">
If we manage to enroll these blue-collar scientists, those
who in actuality do most of the work for science,</segment>
<segment id="40" parent="70" relname="span"> *then* we
can count on beginning to have a dint on the larger dispute.</segment>
<segment id="41" parent="73" relname="span">
Moreover, these blue-collar scientists are strategically well
placed between the elite scientists and the population at large
(to which they are connected, for example, via education institutions).</segment>
<segment id="42" parent="74" relname="span">
So, they can serve to exert real pressure to those above them
(in terms of, say, diverting budgets towards themselves),</segment>
<segment id="43" parent="42" relname="elaboration"> and at
the same time sensitize the next generation of scientists.</segment>
<segment id="44" parent="45" relname="condition">
On the other hand, if we put ourselves on the defensive and
start answering the harangues a la Wolpert/Weinberg/G&L,</segment>
<segment id="45" parent="82" relname="span"> then
all we will be doing is putting ourselves prematurely in the limelight
and thus risking to be permanently tarnished by the unfair
mud thrown at us. </segment>
<segment id="46" parent="77" relname="span"> Let Weinberg think that we can't influence
scientists. </segment>
<segment id="47" parent="46" relname="elaboration"> Let him think that power resides in the policymaker,
and that all it takes to maintain the status quo is to keep
whispering in the ear of this policymaker.</segment>
<segment id="48" parent="46" relname="volitional-result"> Meanwhile, we
STS-ers ought to know better. </segment>
<segment id="49" parent="78" relname="span"> There is much groundwork to
do</segment>
<segment id="51" parent="76" relname="span"> if we want to change the configuration,</segment>
<segment id="50" parent="51" relname="elaboration"> and it's not by
talking--either to our own reflexive selves or to the Big Guys--that we
will start moving....</segment>
<group id="52" type="span" parent="3" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="53" type="span" parent="3" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="54" type="span" parent="56" relname="span" />
<group id="56" type="span" parent="93" relname="span" />
<group id="57" type="span" parent="10" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="58" type="span" parent="79" relname="span" />
<group id="59" type="span" parent="15" relname="background" />
<group id="60" type="span" parent="14" relname="volitional-cause" />
<group id="61" type="span" parent="20" relname="antithesis" />
<group id="62" type="span" parent="24" relname="antithesis" />
<group id="63" type="span" parent="64" relname="span" />
<group id="64" type="span" parent="20" relname="evidence" />
<group id="65" type="span" parent="29" relname="antithesis" />
<group id="66" type="span" parent="68" relname="span" />
<group id="67" type="span" parent="30" relname="evidence" />
<group id="68" type="span" parent="31" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="69" type="span" parent="36" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="70" type="span" parent="38" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="71" type="span" parent="72" relname="span" />
<group id="72" type="span" parent="37" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="73" type="span" parent="71" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="74" type="span" parent="41" relname="elaboration" />
<group id="76" type="span" parent="49" relname="condition" />
<group id="77" type="span" parent="91" relname="span" />
<group id="78" type="span" parent="77" relname="summary" />
<group id="79" type="span" parent="80" relname="span" />
<group id="80" type="span" parent="83" relname="solutionhood" />
<group id="83" type="span" parent="85" relname="span" />
<group id="81" type="span" parent="18" relname="background" />
<group id="84" type="span" parent="19" relname="antithesis" />
<group id="85" type="span" parent="86" relname="volitional-cause" />
<group id="86" type="span" parent="87" relname="span" />
<group id="87" type="span" parent="92" relname="list" />
<group id="88" type="span" parent="89" relname="solutionhood" />
<group id="82" type="span" parent="46" relname="antithesis" />
<group id="89" type="span" parent="90" relname="span" />
<group id="90" type="span" parent="92" relname="list" />
<group id="55" type="span" parent="56" relname="solutionhood" />
<group id="91" type="span" parent="92" relname="list" />
<group id="92" type="multinuc" />
<group id="93" type="span" parent="92" relname="list" />
</body>
</rst>