{"id":9133,"date":"2022-08-23T11:50:45","date_gmt":"2022-08-23T15:50:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/?page_id=9133"},"modified":"2022-08-28T15:19:00","modified_gmt":"2022-08-28T19:19:00","slug":"lbst2213august31","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/lbst2213fall2022\/lbst2213august31\/","title":{"rendered":"August 31st:\u00a0Collins &amp; Pinch\u2019s\u00a0The Golem\u00a0(Science),\u00a0Ch. 3 and 4"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">Don\u2019t forget to post your Canvas response by 11:00 pm Friday! (9\/02)<br>AND CHECK THAT IT POSTED PROPERLY!<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Plan For Today<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>What is energy, and why is it so valuable?<ul><li>Just a question to contemplate<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>Our Readings for Today<\/li><li>Politics of Science<\/li><li>\u201cWhat is\u201d vs \u201cWhat should be\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Ch. 3: The Sun in a Test Tube: The Story of Cold Fusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Take away 3 things<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Scientific credit is competitive. Under the guise of objectivity, it shouldn\u2019t matter who discovers what\u2014observation should be neutral. However, status in one\u2019s field is powerful.<\/li><li>Chemists tend to favor how the field of chemistry (therefore, other chemists) establishes knowledge, and physicists tend to favor how the field of physics establishes knowledge.<\/li><li>The reasons behind not replicating another scientist\u2019s experiments could depend on perspective: If one doesn\u2019t replicate the experiment, they could believe the original results are wrong; on the other hand, those originally doing the experiment could believe those replicating their experiment failed to follow their guidelines.<ul><li>Why else might a chemist not follow a physicist\u2019s model of experiment?<\/li><li>Even though we lump sciences together and claim they all follow the scientific method, there are both similarities and differences.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Interesting thought: What is energy? What energy do you use daily, and where does that energy come from? Just contemplate this for a moment or two.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-css-opacity\" \/>\n\n\n\n<p>Besides knowing what happened (or didn\u2019t) related to cold fusion, it\u2019s also important to consider why scientists even put forth the effort to conduct experiments to find new sources of energy. This might seem obvious, but it\u2019s an often overlooked assumption: Science doesn\u2019t spring from scientists doing experiments in isolation. There is usually a social demand driving research. That \u201cdemand\u201d could be hegemonic and favor powerful groups\u2019 agendas, but it still conforms to ideology. Nuclear fusion (cold or hot) is fusing hydrogen atoms into helium, which releases tons of energy. Why would having cold fusion technology\u2014an energy source that, in theory, gives off more energy than it uses\u2014be of value to our world? What commodities seem to literally \u201cdrive\u201d the engines of the world?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key Quotations for Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 59: Exciting the public, \u201cIt was \u2018science by press conference\u2019 as scientists queued up to announce their latest findings to the media.\u201d<\/li><li>Jones\u2019s motivation and, perhaps, belief that cold fusion was theoretically possible stemmed from his work with the \u201cLos Alamos particle accelerator. [He and his team] found far more evidence of such fusions than theory would have led them to expect.\u201d<ul><li>Unfortunately, that\u2019s not the same as finding a new, commercially viable energy source.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 63-64: The two Utah teams were in competition to discover a viable cold fusion process. \u201cIn view of the obvious commercial payoff\u2026it meant that a certain amount of rivalry and suspicion arose between the two groups.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 65: Guilt by association\u2014Jones wasn\u2019t claiming to have discovered a revolutionary new source of energy. However, he was grouped with Pons and Fleischmann and \u201chas been inevitably subject to the same suspicions.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 66: \u201cThough fusion researchers, well-used to spectacular claims, and with their own billion-dollar research programs to protect, were incredulous, other scientists were more willing to take their work seriously.<ul><li>We\u2019ll come back to this below when we talk about funding.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 69: Pons and Fleischmann believed failure to replicate their experiments was due to the fact that \u201cmany cells were being set up with incorrect parameters and dimensions.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The Politics of Science<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Let\u2019s consider the communication and vetting process of the cold fusion \u201cdiscovery.\u201d Think about the many actors\u2013not in the spotlight\u2013who weighed in on the validity of&nbsp; Pons and Fleischmann\u2019s findings. I\u2019m putting this under \u201cpolitics\u201d because that\u2019s the best word for saying \u201cthe social rules governing the system and providing resources and\/or credit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Think about the phrase \u201coffice politics.\u201d What does that mean? Well, in any office, there are employee expectations, procedures,&nbsp;and authority concerns. Dress codes, working late expectations, communication preferences, etc. have&nbsp;written and unwritten rules. More importantly, whose voice(s) is respected and even who should or shouldn\u2019t speak are aspects of political power (or lack thereof) in an office. Another way to think of \u201cpolitics\u201d is how and why and by whom are resources divided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If you\u2019re interested on reading the differences between two different workplaces, check out <strong><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/pages.uncc.edu\/aaron-toscano\/home\/techwriterculture\/\" target=\"_blank\">these different offices<\/a><\/strong> and consider the office politics based on the job ads. This isn&#8217;t required reading, but, if either job interests you or if technical writing in general interests you, please see me about our <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/english.charlotte.edu\/programs\/undergraduate-program-information\/interdisciplinary-minor-technical-professional-writing\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Professional\/Technical Writing Program<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Otherwise\u2026back to the reading!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Historical discussion<ul><li>Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters wanted to produce more helium in the 1920s for \u201cGerman industry because the USA\u2026refused to sell helium to Germany after [WWI].\u201d<\/li><li>International politics plays a role in science and technology.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 60: Authorities in the field: \u201cAn MIT group claimed\u2026\u201d; \u201ca prestigious California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) group reported\u2026\u201d; \u201cand finally a Cal Tech theorist pronounced that cold fusion was extremely improbable theoretically\u2026\u201d<ul><li>What do all three statements have in common? All three are scientific authorities in the field who claim Pons and Fleischmann\u2019s results are suspect or delusional.<\/li><li>Such statements carry weight in the scientific community and, most likely, for journalists and the public.<\/li><li>Without knowing the scientific details, those authorities are able to persuade the public that&nbsp;Pons and Fleischmann didn\u2019t find what they claimed to find\u2013cold fusion.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 66: \u201cthe levels of neutrons produced should have been more than enough to kill Pons and Fleischmann and anyone else\u201d nearby.<\/li><li>p. 72: \u201cSteve Koonin and Mike Nauenberg\u2026discovered errors which increased the rate of deuterium;\u201d however, \u201cfusion in palladium in the amount needed to produce excess heat is extremely unlikely.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 73: because the experiments weren\u2019t decisive or the results weren\u2019t accepted, the \u201cstandard theory\u201d dominated \u201cand none of the alternative theories gained widespread acceptance.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 74: Pons and Fleischmann\u2019s claims \u201ctread upon the toes of the nuclear physicists and fusion physicists who had already laid claim to the area.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 69: Pons and Fleischmann believed failure to replicate their experiments was due to the fact that \u201cmany cells were being set up with incorrect parameters and dimensions.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 66: One\u2019s discipline guided whether or not one believed the experiments. \u201cPons and Fleischmann have fared better with their colleagues in chemistry where, after all, they were acknowledged experts.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Cold Fusion might have been discredited, but the finding of excess heat measurements seems to have been lost as valuable knowledge. Pons &amp; Fleischmann published a paper on calorimetry (heat measurements) and not on nuclear measurements (p. 77). Unfortunately, physicists were excited initially by the claims, and they were interested in the nuclear reactions (not) taking place. According to Collins &amp; Pinch, that \u201cleft the excess heat measurements as mere anomalies\u201d (p. 77), so physicists weren\u2019t as interested in those findings. Early framing of the scientific discussion, as with any discussion, guides future discussions. It\u2019s very difficult to change the meaning of experiments when a rhetorical approach dominates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Funding Motivation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019m asking you to think critically about scientists motivated by funding. There\u2019s a view that scientists are trumping up claims about climate change in order to get funding. While we might be able to find instances where that was a motivation for scientists studying a variety of sciences, if a large portion of scientists (more than 5% I\u2019ll say with no statistical accuracy) did such a thing, there would be very little \u201creal\u201d science. Think of the medical procedures that would fail; the microwaves that would blow up; the airplanes that would fall from the sky. Dismissing scientific research because you want to believe the scientists are out for money is irresponsible and intellectually dull. Fake science doesn\u2019t last very long as the above Cold Fusion case study shows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Collins &amp; Pinch mention something about possible funding worries of physicists. Don\u2019t assume legitimate worries are nefarious motives for scientists who want to get all the grants and exclude others from the funding sources.&nbsp;Collins &amp; Pinch state that the fusion physicists rejection was not \u201cmerely a matter of wanting to maintain billion-dollar investments (although with the Department of Energy threatening to transfer hot fusion funding to cold fusion research, there was a direct threat to their interests)\u201d (p. 74). Sure, transferring funding from hot to cold fusion would have affected the research labs of many physicists. The \u201cself-interests\u201d of scientists are motivated by their research goals, and, as experts, they\u2019re probably the best ones to explain the value of their work. Rethink the situation as they\u2019re motivated for scientific discovery, which requires money to conduct. They\u2019re not just pocketing it and going to Vegas (even if that might have happened once or twice).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Where are they today?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Martin_Fleischmann\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Martin Fleischmann<\/a><\/strong><\/li><li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Stanley_Pons\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Stanley Pons<\/a>&nbsp;<\/strong>(Born in <a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Valdese,_North_Carolina\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Valdese, NC<\/a>!)<\/li><li><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Steven_E._Jones\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Steven E. Jones<\/a><\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Ch. 4: The Germs of Dissent: Louis Pasteur and the Origins of Life<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Take away 3 things from Pasteur-Pouchet Debate<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Scientific Authority stacked in favor of Pasteur<ol><li><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.academie-sciences.fr\/en\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences<\/a><\/strong>, the official French body adjudicating scientific disputes, had two commissions made up of pro-Pasteur\/anti-Spontaneous Generation members.<\/li><li>Consider this a government peer-review process.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><li>Erroneously, they also wanted to dismiss <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/F%C3%A9lix_Archim%C3%A8de_Pouchet\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">F\u00e9lix-Archim\u00e8de&nbsp;Pouchet<\/a><\/strong> and the idea of Spontaneous Generation because they felt it would strike the final blow to Darwinism.<ol><li>Of course, this is a misreading of Darwin and Evolution, a science in its infancy in 1864.<\/li><li>Spontaneous generation doesn\u2019t have to be the key to evolution, and it certainly didn\u2019t debunk Darwin\u2019s theory of decent through natural selection.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><li>p. 85: \u201cPasteur was so committed in his opposition to spontaneous generation that he preferred to believe there was some unknown flaw in his work than to publish the results.\u201d<ol><li>He couldn\u2019t prove what the flaw was, but he was committed to the belief that life doesn\u2019t generate spontaneously from nothing.<\/li><li>Although <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Louis_Pasteur\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Louis Pasteur<\/a><\/strong> was correct, he couldn\u2019t prove it through a decisive experiment or point to the particular flaw.<\/li><\/ol><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key quotations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 79: The Pasteur-Pouchet debate to determine whether or not spontaneous generation existed \u201cwas a controversial issue, especially in nineteenth-century France because it touched upon deeply rooted religious and political sensibilities.\u201d<br>*Collins &amp; Pinch discuss the religious issue surrounding evolution, but they don\u2019t explicitly identify the political issue. They mean the politics of the French scientific community. The governing authority set up how science was vetted, and, in this case, the vetting process favored Pasteur and was \u201cunsympathetic\u201d to Pouchet.<\/li><li>p. 80: \u201cAs in so many other scientific controversies, it was neither facts nor reason, but death and weight of numbers that defeated the minority view; facts and reasons, as always, were ambiguous.\u201d<br>*<strong><em>Ambiguity<\/em><\/strong>\u2014\u201cbecause you know sometimes words have two meanings\u201d Led Zeppelin<\/li><li>p. 81: \u201c[I]n the nineteenth century the techniques for determining what was sterile and what was living were being established.\u201d Therefore, it wasn\u2019t universally accepted what constituted a sterile environment.<ul><li>In fact, what does constitute a sterile environment? Which of the following is the most sterile environment? Salad bar, hospital, refrigerator, keyboard on a library computer, cat, recently washed dishes\u2026<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 83: Interpretations of Spontaneous Generation Experiments table \u201callowed Pasteur virtually to define all air that gave rise to life in the flasks as contaminated.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 86: Pasteur\u2019s \u201c20 flasks exposed to air at 2000 metres on a glacier in the French Alps [had] only one affected.\u201d Pouchet\u2019s eight flasks all were contaminated, and \u201che had used a heated file instead of <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.dictionary.com\/browse\/pincers\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">pincers<\/a><\/strong> to open the flasks.\u201d<br><strong>What does Pasteur get to say about that?<\/strong><\/li><li>p. 87: \u201cBy accident or design, all members of the commission were unsympathetic to Pouchet\u2019s ideas and some announced their conclusion before examining the entries.\u201d<br>\u201cThe second commission too was composed of members whose view were known to be strongly and uniformly opposed to those of Pouchet.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 88: Modern commentators\u2026have suggested that Pouchet might have been successful if he had stayed the course\u2014albeit for the wrong reasons!\u201d<\/li><li>p. 89: \u201cIt was thought at the time that Darwinism rested upon the idea of spontaneous generation\u2026.Pasteur, then, was taken to have dealt a final blow to the theory of evolution with the same stroke as he struck down the spontaneous generation of life.\u201d<br>*Is it any surprise that the French Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences was opposed to the theory proposed by Darwin and Alfred Wallace, both British scientists (or naturalists)?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Pasteur-Pouchet Debate Speculation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Experimental Controls:&nbsp;Yeast vs.&nbsp;Hay&nbsp;Infusions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It seems Collins &amp; Pinch, when initially describing Pouchet\u2019s Pyrenean experiment (p.86), held out that he used hay infusions as the \u201cnutritive medium\u201d as well as a heated file to open the flasks (p. 88). It\u2019s quite possible the heated file had nothing to do with the contamination Pouchet found. Instead, \u201c[i]t was not until 1876 that it was discovered that hay infusions support a spore that is not easily killed by boiling\u201d (p. 88). Pasteur used yeast as the \u201cnutritive medium\u201d that was sterilized, and he may or may not have conducted the experiment with hay infusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Had he used hay infusions and found putrescence, how might he conclude? Would he throw up his hands and say, \u201cyes, Pouchet, you are correct\u201d? Or &#8220;<em>Oui vous avez raison<\/em>.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>How would he deal with this anomaly?<\/li><li>Is it ethical for a scientist to allow assumptions to condition conclusions?<\/li><li>Is &#8220;healthy skepticism&#8221; the same as doubting or dismissing what you can&#8217;t explain?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Just topics to consider for further thought. Again, Pasteur was correct, but he couldn&#8217;t fully explain the reason through experimentation. The scientific authority concluded in his favor but not because the science won them over\u2014it was political.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Pasteur\u2019s Brilliance<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>In order to appreciate <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Louis_Pasteur\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Louis Pasteur\u2019s brilliance<\/a><\/strong>,* we need to recognize his cutting-edge science in context. Today, we understand germs, microbes, bacteria, viruses, and how they\u2019re spread. Pasteur had to convince the scientific community and the public that invisible microbes were responsible for infections and many diseases. He\u2019s best known for <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pasteurization\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">pasteurization<\/a><\/strong>, which means we get wine and milk prepared in such a way to stop bacterial contamination. The knowledge of microscopic organisms\u2013not observable by the naked eye\u2013is pretty amazing for a time period (mid-to-late 19th Century) where average citizens wouldn\u2019t be learning these facts in schools the way we learn them today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The American Civil War had more casualties because of disease than wounds from battle or being killed in battle (for an analysis on Union Army deaths, see <a href=\"https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/4450468?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Gilchrist, Michael. \u201cDisease &amp; Infection in the American Civil War.\u201d <em>The American Biology Teacher<\/em>, 60.4 [Apr., 1998]: pp. 258-262<\/a>). A major reason was because of the non-sterile, dirty environment of field hospitals and poor sanitation (Gilchrist 259). The medical community wasn\u2019t aware of the need for sterile environments, so patients often died from surgery with unclean instruments than from the issues that they went to the hospital to get treated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>*Although Pasteur wasn\u2019t the first to propose germ theory (c.f. <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Agostino_Bassi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Agostino Bassi<\/a><\/strong>), he certainly did plenty of work in the field and helped bring new science and technology to the world, making humans safer, healthier, and disease resistant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Question for Class<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u2019s not surprising that the federal government has a role in science and technology. One goal of General Education (and LBST courses specifically) is to consider <strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">\u201cWhat is\u201d vs \u201cWhat should be.\u201d<\/span><\/strong> I have four questions for us:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>What is the Government\u2019s role in science?<ul><li>What should be the Government\u2019s role in science?<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>What is the Government\u2019s role in technology?<ul><li>What should be the Government\u2019s role in technology?<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Basically, when we discuss \u201cwhat is,\u201d we\u2019re describing the contemporary situation. When we discuss \u201cwhat should be,\u201d we\u2019re making arguments for (or against) certain policies based on sound, logical evidence and reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many of you are probably aware of <strong><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/01\/25\/us\/politics\/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html?_r=0\" target=\"_blank\">President Trump\u2019s gag order on federal agencies (from a few years back) that bans them from communicating directly with non-governmental entities<\/a><\/strong>. How is that similar to The <em>Academie des Sciences<\/em> in the Pasteur-Pouchet debate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Speaking of an <em>Academia<\/em> in Europe&#8230;stay tuned for the <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/121\/2022\/08\/InterculturalCommPostcard.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Study Abroad Program on the Amalfi Coast<\/a><\/strong> (more details in the future).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Next Class<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Keep up with the reading. You&#8217;ll have Ch. 5 &amp; 6 for Wednesday, 9\/7. I won&#8217;t have a webpage up for 9\/5 in observance of Labor Day, but, of course, you have plenty to read, so catch up if needed. Also, your Canvas post for this week is up and ready, so post it! After 11:00 pm on Friday, 9\/02, you won\u2019t be able to post. <strong>If you haven\u2019t set that weekly reminder, do so now.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Don\u2019t forget to post your Canvas response by 11:00 pm Friday! (9\/02)AND CHECK THAT IT POSTED PROPERLY! Plan For Today What is energy, and why is it so valuable? Just a question to contemplate Our Readings for Today Politics of Science \u201cWhat is\u201d vs \u201cWhat should be\u201d Ch. 3: The Sun in a Test Tube: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":598,"featured_media":0,"parent":9091,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-9133","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P2HAOx-2nj","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9133","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/598"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9133"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9133\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9137,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9133\/revisions\/9137"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}