Plan for the Day
- Ch. 7 and the Conclusion
- Canvas posts are at least 250 words and are due EVERY week on Fridays before 11:00 pm
- Test 1 is open on CANVAS and due by Friday, 9/16,
- You take the test anywhere you have access to the Internet. You have 75 minutes to complete the Test once you start. Of course, that assumes you start the Test by 9:45pm on Friday, 9/16.
- The test will close promptly if you run out of time or try to go past the cutoff time–11:00 pm. My advice is to do it early.
Chapter 7: “Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun”
Much like we (yes, all of you think this) assume technologies will improve and solve problems in the future (e.g., the statement, “one day there will be a cure for that…”), scientists working under assumptions they’re confident in but can’t definitively prove through contemporary experiments also believe future experiments will confirm their agreed-upon theories. Is this blind faith? No. Scientists work from theories, observations, experiments, and well-thought hypotheses intersubjectively believed by members of a particular discipline (or discourse community). As you’ve read, science is established and built upon past science.
To focus our attention, we’ll consider three scientists who are mentioned in the Chapter. Obviously, Ray Davis and John Bahcall are important main characters, but so is Richard Feynman who is mentioned just once. Feynman reappears in the next book, so we’ll just preview him.
Three Things to takeaway from Ch. 7
- Collaboration from multiple disciplines (domains) for the solar-neutrino experiment and theories meant no one discipline had domain over the search…and, therefore, interpretation.
- Funding requires more than being a competent scientist. Scientists must persuade funding sources and be able to show the value of their work. This requires communicating with people not well-versed in scientific fields.
- The solar-neutrino experiments didn’t overthrow accepted stellar evolution theory; instead, the results are (were) seen as an anomaly. Agreed-upon assumptions of the theory have allowed scientists to set aside the experimental results that showed fewer neutrinos than the theory claimed.
Key Quotations from Ch. 7
- p. 121: “For astronomers and astrophysicists, stellar evolution theory is taken for granted as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution is for biologists.”
Don’t assume that Collins & Pinch are claiming evolution is just a theory. Evolution has been confirmed repeatedly over the last 150+ years. When Davis was doing his experiments in the mid-1960s, nuclear astrophysics was only 30 years old: “Nuclear astrophysics as a discipline had taken off in the 1930s” (p. 125). It wasn’t until 2002 when the reason for the solar-neutrino problem, neutrino oscillation, was settled. - p. 124: “The experimental technique Davis used came from the hybrid field of radioactivity and chemistry, known as radio-chemistry.”
- p. 126: Humans have careers to consider. “The need for scientists to act in a concerted manner over a period of time as they pursue their careers…” Scientists don’t work alone; they work within communities and share ideas.
- We in the English Studies world refer to communities that read and write to each other (through journal articles and books) as discourse communities.
- Why must researchers work with others? Why have conferences, journals, partnerships, etc.?
Rhetoric of Science
- p. 128: “It is naïve (great song, btw) to think that scientists obtain funding merely by writing a compelling grant proposal. To get funding for a major facility scientists have to engage in political lobbying and other forms of persuasion.”
Also, there was popular press attention on solar-neutrinos, which made Davis and Bahcall’s work appear important. Why would popular press articles make their work seem important? - p. 128-129: Two important rhetorical approaches for securing funding for the experiment:
- “The rhetoric of ‘cruciality’ is clearly context dependent. There can be little doubt that when seeking hard-pressed dispensers of funds for large sums of money it helps to be doing something crucial.”
- Davis and Bahcall needed the support of nuclear and particle physicists, who “were skeptical of astrophysics which they regarded as being much less precise [than their own work].” These people needed to be convinced “that the predictions were reliable and the experiment feasible.”
- p. 129: “There is some evidence that the predictions of the flux of solar neutrinos varied with the physicists’ need for funding.”
- Collins & Pinch aren’t explicit here. They imply that Davis and Bahcall made higher-than-actual predictions about Solar Neutrino Units in order to make their experiment seem more important.
Responses to the solar-neutrino problem
- p. 131: A lengthy “process of questioning and examination [of the solar-neutrino problem]; just about every assumption upon which the scientific basis of the project was based has come under challenge.”
- p. 134: Advice from mentors. “Feynman apparently advised the young Bahcall that he had done nothing wrong and that if there was a contradiction this made the result more rather than less important.” He changed his position on the solar-neutrino problem “by stressing the scientific importance of the problem.”
- In other words, he changes the rhetorical strategy from let’s find evidence of ALL the solar neutrinos to let’s discover why we can’t find ALL the solar neutrinos. It’s subtle, but hundreds of thousands of dollars were riding on that change.
- p. 135: Davis builds his ethos and becomes “widely regarded as one of the best experimenters in modern science.”
- What’s ethos? Think credibility.
- p. 137: “[S]tellar evolution theory has not been overthrown. The solar-neutrino result has been treated as an anomaly; something to be put aside for the time being.”
- p. 137-138: Agreed-upon assumptions are ways to black box a science—stopping the “what if…” debates. There must be taken-for-granted assumptions in science in order to have consensus for theories not proved.
- Scientific culture is, as are all cultures, socially based. We don’t reevaluate word usage during conversations because we have a common language that allows us to transfer ideas. Meaning is (somewhat) set by the language-speaking community. We’ve already bought into the meanings because we’ve absorbed them as participating members of a culture.
- p. 138: “Science works the way it does, not because of any absolute constraint from Nature, but because we make our science the way we do.”
- Notice the subtle meaning in this quotation. Science is made. It isn’t something that springs from the ground. Humans shape this knowledge.
- It’s not debunking science to claim it’s socially constructed; after all, hegemonic groups (like governments and big businesses) pursue research and development for solutions to problems or for understanding natural phenomena.
Ponder Scientific Communication
Consider the following quotation from Ch. 7. Reflect upon a science you’re familiar with—no need to be an expert—and come up with ways, mechanisms, communication, etc. that the scientists are networked. Sure, the Internet is one of those networks, but what are other ways the communities coalesce or interact?
- Conferences
- Journals
- Journalism
- E-mails
- Phone calls…video conferencing
p. 131: “Theory and experiment are not independent activities. They are linked through and through, and form a wider network of ties between scientists.”
Doubt, Skepticism,* and Creating Knowledge
Before getting to the conclusion, I want to discuss a concern that covers a range of disciplines and, perhaps, all areas of life. Remember Voltaire’s quote: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Simply put, we may find a lack of definitiveness about a topic uneasy; however, to have certainty is an absurd position. The willful ignorance (or the cliché that ignorance is bliss) needed to maintain certainty of a conclusion** is antithetical to post-Enlightenment epistemology. This doesn’t mean you can’t believe anything, but it does ask you to scrutinize your assumptions. Let’s get one thing out in the open: we all make assumptions–they just might not be based on all the facts or interpretations of the facts available. When someone asks you, “You know what it means when you assume?”, state, “Yes, you consider past actions and events and speculate on current dispositions or future outcomes.” Then, if you haven’t followed my one-year-and-done rule, break up already…you’ll thank me.
Following the course goal to have more questions than answers, our not knowing the entirety of subjects is fine. The key is to grow and push boundaries–inspire radical new ways of thinking. I don’t mean being contrary for the sake of being a contrarian (although that has its place…c.f. the one-year-and-done rule) or embracing hipsterism and embracing the new as the best and only thing worth of your attention. Without skepticism and doubt, no fields would move forward in answering new questions regarding what it means to be human or humans’ impacts on the planet. Whether that inquiry be for a new vaccine, cleaner energy, or more innovative technical communication pedagogy, testing our (and the various fields’) assumptions provides us with ways to explore and create new knowledge.
Be skeptics! Be Thinkers! And abandon all aspects of willful ignorance.
A note on perpetual doubting: It doesn’t take a PhD in rhetoric to know that one can nearly ALWAYS raise doubts and pick apart evidence when under the paradigm of no absolute certainty. Are whiptail lizards gay? Well, that imposes both a human and heteronormative linguistic frame (an, therefore, assumption) on an observation. Trust me. You can debate the meanings of words ad infinitum. At some point, it makes sense to agree to agree on the parameters of a question intersubjectively in order to move forward. What I hope you’re able to do is, when a hater or contrarian wants to continue to dismiss your quasi-stable assumption, you’re able to consider from where the naysayer is coming. Ask:
- What motivation do they have to prove me wrong? (money, gaslighting, need to keep their worldview intact, etc.)
- How much energy do I want to spend on this “discussion”? (After all, would you re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic?)
- What perspective or worldview might be shaping their assumptions of the topic? (age, gender, discipline, region, etc.)
Your goal is to be more effective at recognizing the rhetoric–the ways in which meaning is understood and communicated–of the situation in order to continue or move on from the conversation. That is having a bigger-picture worldview, the goal for college-educated individuals.
*Collins & Pinch spell this as scepticism, following a British conventions of spelling.
**If a train is coming at you, do yourself a favor and let the obvious assumption that it will hit you prevail, and get off the tracks!!!
CONCLUSION: Putting the Golem to Work
An exercise in delayed gratification
Although Collins & Pinch prepare readers for their conclusions and goals of their book in the Preface(s) and Introduction, in order to understand their argument, readers must engage the chapters to not just read for content, but also to read for how to (re)think about science. The chapter episodes are ways to see the messiness and consensus building of science, which is contrary to the popular view of science as perfect. Collins & Pinch do an excellent job in the Conclusion by explaining how to extrapolate the lessons from the chapters to think about science and technology from social, humanistic perspectives.
Again, it’s not that Collins & Pinch’s work is beyond critique. There are more stories to be told about the sciences they discuss. However, that’s the point—there is no single STORY. Unless you’re in the lab doing the experiments (and there’s plenty of room to argue that even that isn’t a privileged position of omniscience) and communicating the results to your peers, you’re getting the story of science and technology through a filter. Filters aren’t bad—they can’t be avoided. Collins & Pinch represent these scientific stories through a filter that focuses on sociology and philosophy of science. Rhetorically, this narrative is different from so-called traditional scientific communication, but it is still a valuable discussion of science. It is worthwhile to pay attention to their conclusions.
Below I’ve provided key quotations from each section of the Conclusion.
Looking Forward and Looking Back
- p. 140: “What our case studies [the chapters of the book] show is that there is no logic to scientific discovery. Or, rather, if there is such a logic, it is the logic of everyday life.”
What is the “logic of everyday life,” and why is “discovery” a loaded term?
Human Error
- p. 140: “It is impossible to separate science from society, yet preserving the idea that there are two distinct spheres is what creates the authoritarian image so familiar to us.”
- p. 140: Can’t expect certainty from scientists: “…things will always go wrong in any human enterprise.”
- p. 140: “Scientists should promise less; they might then be better able to keep their promises.”
Who’s to blame when something goes wrong? When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig leaked, many wondered whether BP, Transocean, or Haliburton were to blame. They were all probably directly to blame, but I certainly know who was indirectly to blame…Everyone who demands petroleum is indirectly to blame. That’s all of us: you, me, and everyone with a car or user of plastic products. Rethink idling your car in the Chik-Fil-a drive through.
Public Understanding of Science
- p. 141: Collins & Pinch question the value of mimicking “high sciences,” specifically physics. This is “a misplaced ideal.”
- p. 141: “It is no coincidence that those who feel most certain of their grip on scientific method have rarely worked on the frontiers of science themselves.”
Science and the Citizen
- p. 142: Citizens need to know more about science and not just more science. {Scientists–and all of you–need to know more science, assuming you’re in a STEM field}
- p. 143: “To change the public understanding of the political role of science and technology is the most important purpose of our book and that is why most of our chapters have revealed the inner workings of science.” The goal isn’t to teach more science.
Forensic Science
- p. 144: What else might give rise to a positive test for nitroglycerine?
- If the jury isn’t told that alternative contamination could be possible, then the “science” absolute and questioning other possibilities never influences the validity of evidence.
- p. 145: Science on/in trial: “…if scientific evidence is subject to the same contestation as other kinds of evidence, it cannot suffer the embarrassment of misplaced certainty.”
- p. 145 “…any piece of evidence can be examined and doubted….Doubts about evidence can always be raised. But it does not follow from this that forensic evidence should carry no weight.”
- p. 146: “Mechanisms will have to be found so that the influence of non-expert voices is not as great as that of experts.”
- p. 146: “Allowing everyone to speak is as bad as allowing a single group alone to speak. It is as bad as having no-one speak.”
- This can be the fallacy of equal time, promoting fringe opinions as having the same validity as well-established theories, facts, or expert opinions.
- If you ask 20 economists for an opinion on inflation, you’ll get 21 opinions…
- It’s often a better strategy to communicate a well-defined, unitary message than to provide too much competing information to the public.
Science on Television
- p. 147: Television and other media outlets filter science in ways that make it seem clear and decisive. “All too few television programmes offer the picture of science portrayed in these pages.”
- How is science usually portrayed on television?
- Great TV but not realistic…
Science Education
- p. 148: Educate savvy citizens to think about science—not just experiments.
- p. 149: Current education has the view that “the grown-up world of science and technology” is where perfection is.
- p. 149: “If only, now and again, teachers and their classes would pause to reflect…they could learn most of what there is to know about the sociology of science.”
- p. 149: “[I]t is the scientific community (the head teacher?) who brings order to this chaos, transmuting the clumsy antics of the collective Golem Science into a neat and tidy methodological myth.”
[Missing: “Public Inquiries,” “Experiments…,” “Accident Inquiries”—More on these in the next book.]
As I mentioned in class, there won’t be any questions from the “Afterword.” It’s a fine review, but it mainly explains Collins & Pinch’s reasons for conclusions that practicing scientists disagree with. In a masterful way, this “Afterword” seals their over-arching conclusion that the path to black-boxed science isn’t a smooth, linear process, and there are plenty of disagreements that underscore the need for communication, (re)interpretation, and continued attention to science.
Next Class
Test 1 is open on CANVAS and will be multiple choice, True/False, and fill-in-the-blank. You have until Friday, 9/16, at 11:00 pm to do it. Once you start the Test, you’ll have 75 minutes to finish so no stopping and re-starting. It will be 25 questions, 4 pts. each. There are more than 25 questions in the test bank, so you won’t necessarily get the same questions as another classmate. Of course, you won’t know what questions your other classmates get because that would be cheating. Besides, you should be social distancing anyway. We won’t have a webpage for Wednesday, 9/14, so use the time to do Test 1.
For next week (Monday, 9/19), have the Prefaces and Ch. 1 of Collins & Pinch’s next book read. I won’t have a page up for Wednesday, 9/21, because I want to give you a day to catch up, but, as always, you’ll have Discussion post due every week.
Collins & Pinch’s next book is also available as an e-book from Atkins Library. If you’re signed onto Atkins Library, you’ll have no trouble downloading it from here:
The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology
If you’re off campus, you’ll need to search for it on the library website and sign in using your Ninernet Student ID and password.
Canvas Posts: You will absolutely not receive any credit for a Canvas post below 250 words. The syllabus, the website, and each prompt clearly state that these prompts must be at least 250 words. There are no make ups, so, if you aren’t following this requirement, you’ll want to start following it from now on.