{"id":9169,"date":"2022-09-11T17:29:15","date_gmt":"2022-09-11T21:29:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/?page_id=9169"},"modified":"2022-09-12T11:12:16","modified_gmt":"2022-09-12T15:12:16","slug":"lbst2213september12","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/lbst2213fall2022\/lbst2213september12\/","title":{"rendered":"September 12th:\u00a0Collins &amp; Pinch\u2019s\u00a0The Golem\u00a0(Science), Ch. 7 and Conclusion"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Plan for the Day<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Ch. 7 and the Conclusion<\/li><li>Canvas posts are at least 250 words and are due EVERY week on Fridays before 11:00 pm<\/li><li><span style=\"background-color: #ffff00\"><strong>Test 1&nbsp;<\/strong>is open on <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/canvas.charlotte.edu\/\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>CANVAS<\/strong><\/a> and due by Friday, 9\/16, <\/span><ul><li>You take the test&nbsp;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.<\/li><li>The test will close promptly if you run out of time or try to go past the cutoff time&#8211;11:00 pm. My advice is to do it early.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Chapter 7: \u201cSet the Controls for the Heart of the Sun\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Much like we (yes, all of you think this) assume technologies will improve and solve problems in the future (e.g., the statement, &#8220;one day there will be a cure for that\u2026&#8221;), scientists working under assumptions they\u2019re confident in but can\u2019t 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 <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Intersubjectivity\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">intersubjectively<\/a><\/strong> believed by members of a particular discipline (or discourse community). As you\u2019ve read, science is established and built upon past science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To focus our attention, we&#8217;ll consider three scientists who are mentioned in the Chapter. Obviously, <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Raymond_Davis,_Jr.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Ray Davis<\/a><\/strong> and <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/John_N._Bahcall\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">John Bahcall<\/a><\/strong> are important main characters, but so is <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Richard_Feynman\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Richard Feynman<\/a><\/strong> who is mentioned just once. Feynman&nbsp;reappears in the next book, so we&#8217;ll just preview him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Three&nbsp;Things to takeaway from Ch. 7<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Collaboration from multiple disciplines (domains) for the solar-neutrino experiment and theories meant no one discipline had domain over the search&#8230;and, therefore, <strong><em>interpretation<\/em><\/strong>.<\/li><li>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.<\/li><li>The solar-neutrino experiments didn\u2019t 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.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key Quotations from Ch. 7<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 121: \u201cFor astronomers and astrophysicists, stellar evolution theory is taken for granted as much as Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution is for biologists.\u201d<br><em>Don\u2019t assume that Collins &amp; 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: \u201cNuclear astrophysics as a discipline had taken off in the 1930s\u201d (p. 125). It wasn\u2019t until 2002 when the reason for <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Solar_neutrino_problem\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>the solar-neutrino problem, neutrino oscillation<\/strong>,<\/a> was settled.<\/em><\/li><li>p. 124: \u201cThe experimental technique Davis used came from the hybrid field of radioactivity and chemistry, known as radio-chemistry.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 126: Humans have careers to consider. \u201cThe need for scientists to act in a concerted manner over a period of time as they pursue their careers\u2026\u201d Scientists don\u2019t work alone; they work within communities and share ideas.<ul><li>We in the English Studies world refer to communities that read and write to each other (through journal articles and books) as <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Discourse_community\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">discourse communities<\/a><\/strong>.<\/li><li>Why must researchers work with others? Why have conferences, journals, partnerships, etc.?<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Rhetoric of Science<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 128: \u201cIt is <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=jkaMiaRLgvY\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">na\u00efve<\/a><\/strong> (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.\u201d<br>Also, there was popular press attention on solar-neutrinos, which made Davis and Bahcall\u2019s work appear important. <strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">Why would popular press articles make their work seem important?<\/span><\/strong><\/li><li>p. 128-129: Two important rhetorical approaches for securing funding for the experiment:<ol><li>\u201cThe rhetoric of \u2018cruciality\u2019 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.\u201d<\/li><li>Davis and Bahcall needed the support of nuclear and particle physicists, who \u201cwere skeptical of astrophysics which they regarded as being much less precise [than their own work].\u201d These people needed to be convinced \u201cthat the predictions were reliable and the experiment feasible.\u201d<\/li><\/ol><\/li><li>p. 129: \u201cThere is some evidence that the predictions of the flux of solar neutrinos varied with the physicists\u2019 need for funding.\u201d<ul><li>Collins &amp; Pinch aren\u2019t 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.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Responses to the solar-neutrino problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 131: A lengthy \u201cprocess of questioning and examination [of the solar-neutrino problem]; <strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">just about every assumption upon which the scientific basis of the project was based has come under challenge<\/span><\/strong>.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 134: Advice from mentors. \u201c<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Richard_Feynman\" target=\"_blank\">Feynman<\/a> 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.\u201d He changed his position on the solar-neutrino problem \u201cby stressing the scientific importance of the problem.\u201d<ul><li>In other words, he changes the rhetorical strategy from <strong><em>let&#8217;s find evidence of ALL the solar neutrinos to let&#8217;s discover why we can&#8217;t find ALL the solar neutrinos<\/em><\/strong>. It&#8217;s subtle, but hundreds of thousands of dollars were riding on that change.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 135: Davis builds his <strong>ethos<\/strong> and becomes \u201cwidely regarded as one of the best experimenters in modern science.\u201d<ul><li>What&#8217;s ethos? Think credibility.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">p. 137: \u201c[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.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/li><li>p. 137-138: Agreed-upon assumptions are ways to black box a science\u2014stopping the \u201cwhat if\u2026\u201d debates. There must be taken-for-granted assumptions in science in order to have consensus for theories not proved.<ul><li>Scientific culture is, as are all cultures, socially based. We don\u2019t reevaluate word usage during conversations because we have a common language that allows us to transfer ideas. <strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">Meaning is (somewhat) set by the language-speaking community.<\/span><\/strong> We\u2019ve already bought into the meanings because we&#8217;ve absorbed them as participating members of a culture.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 138: \u201cScience works the way it does, not because of any absolute constraint from Nature, but because we make our science the way we do.\u201d<ul><li>Notice the subtle meaning in this quotation. Science is made. It isn&#8217;t something that springs from the ground. Humans shape this knowledge.<\/li><li>It&#8217;s not debunking science to claim it&#8217;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.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Ponder Scientific Communication<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consider the following quotation from Ch. 7. Reflect upon a science you\u2019re familiar with\u2014no need to be an expert\u2014and 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>Conferences<\/li><li>Journals<\/li><li>Journalism<\/li><li>E-mails<\/li><li>Phone calls&#8230;video conferencing<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">p. 131: \u201cTheory and experiment are not independent activities. They are linked through and through, and form a wider network of ties between scientists.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Doubt, Skepticism,* and Creating Knowledge<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Before getting to the conclusion, I want to discuss a concern that covers a range of disciplines and, perhaps, all areas of life. Remember <strong><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Voltaire\" target=\"_blank\">Voltaire<\/a><\/strong>\u2019s quote: <strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">\u201cDoubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.\u201d<\/span><\/strong> 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 clich\u00e9 that <em>ignorance is bliss<\/em>) needed to maintain certainty of a conclusion** is antithetical to post-Enlightenment epistemology. This doesn&#8217;t mean you can&#8217;t believe anything, but it does ask you to scrutinize your assumptions. Let&#8217;s get one thing out in the open: we all make assumptions&#8211;they just might not be based on all the facts or interpretations of the facts available. When someone asks you, &#8220;You know what it means when you assume?&#8221;, state, &#8220;Yes, you consider past actions and events and speculate on current dispositions or future outcomes.&#8221; Then, if you haven&#8217;t followed my one-year-and-done rule, break up already&#8230;you&#8217;ll thank me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>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&#8211;inspire radical new ways of thinking. I don&#8217;t mean being contrary for the sake of being a contrarian (although that has its place&#8230;c.f. <em>the one-year-and-done rule<\/em>) 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&#8217; 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&#8217;) assumptions provides us with ways to explore and create new knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Be skeptics! Be Thinkers! And abandon all aspects of willful ignorance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>A note on perpetual doubting:<\/strong> It doesn&#8217;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 <em><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ad_infinitum\" target=\"_blank\">ad infinitum<\/a><\/em>. 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&#8217;re able to do is, when a hater or contrarian wants to continue to dismiss your quasi-stable assumption, you&#8217;re able to consider from where the naysayer is coming. Ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>What motivation do they have to prove me wrong? (money, <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Gaslighting\" target=\"_blank\">gaslighting<\/a>, need to keep their worldview intact, etc.)<\/li><li>How much energy do I want to spend on this &#8220;discussion&#8221;? (After all, would you re-arrange deck chairs on the <em>Titanic<\/em>?)<\/li><li>What perspective or worldview might be shaping their assumptions of the topic? (age, gender, discipline, region, etc.)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Your goal is to be more effective at recognizing the rhetoric&#8211;the ways in which meaning is understood and communicated&#8211;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>*Collins &amp; Pinch spell this as <em>scepticism<\/em>, following a British conventions of spelling.<br>**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!!!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">CONCLUSION: Putting the Golem to Work<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>An exercise in delayed gratification<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Although Collins &amp; 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 &amp; 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Again, it\u2019s not that Collins &amp; Pinch\u2019s work is beyond critique. There are more stories to be told about the sciences they discuss. However, that\u2019s the point\u2014there is no single STORY. Unless you\u2019re in the lab doing the experiments (and there\u2019s plenty of room to argue that even that isn\u2019t a privileged position of omniscience) and communicating the results to your peers, you\u2019re getting the story of science and technology through a filter. Filters aren\u2019t bad\u2014they can\u2019t be avoided. Collins &amp; 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Below I\u2019ve provided key quotations from each section of the Conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Looking Forward and Looking Back<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 140: &#8220;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.&#8221;<br>What is the &#8220;logic of everyday life,&#8221; and why is &#8220;discovery&#8221; a loaded term?<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Human Error<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 140: \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 140: Can\u2019t expect certainty from scientists: \u201c\u2026things will always go wrong in any human enterprise.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 140: \u201cScientists should promise less; they might then be better able to keep their promises.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Who&#8217;s to blame when something goes wrong? When the <strong><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill\" target=\"_blank\">Deepwater Horizon<\/a><\/strong> 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&#8230;Everyone who demands petroleum is indirectly to blame. That&#8217;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Public Understanding of Science<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 141: Collins &amp; Pinch question the value of mimicking \u201chigh sciences,\u201d specifically physics. This is \u201ca misplaced ideal.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 141: \u201cIt is no coincidence that those who feel most certain of their grip on scientific method have rarely worked on the frontiers of science themselves.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Science and the Citizen<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 142: Citizens need to know more <em>about<\/em> science and not just <em>more<\/em> science. {Scientists&#8211;and all of you&#8211;need to know more science, assuming you&#8217;re in a STEM field}<\/li><li>p. 143: \u201cTo 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.\u201d The goal isn\u2019t to teach more science.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Forensic Science<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 144: What else might give rise to a positive test for nitroglycerine?<ul><li>If the jury isn&#8217;t told that alternative contamination could be possible, then the &#8220;science&#8221; absolute and questioning other possibilities never influences the validity of evidence.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><li>p. 145: Science on\/in trial: \u201c\u2026if scientific evidence is subject to the same contestation as other kinds of evidence, it cannot suffer the embarrassment of misplaced certainty.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 145 \u201c\u2026any piece of evidence can be examined and doubted\u2026.Doubts about evidence can always be raised. But it does not follow from this that forensic evidence should carry no weight.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 146: \u201cMechanisms will have to be found so that the influence of non-expert voices is not as great as that of experts.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 146: \u201cAllowing everyone to speak is as bad as allowing a single group alone to speak. It is as bad as having no-one speak.\u201d<ul><li>This can be <strong>the fallacy of equal time<\/strong>, promoting fringe opinions as having the same validity as well-established theories, facts, or expert opinions.<\/li><li>If you ask 20 economists for an opinion on inflation, you&#8217;ll get 21 opinions&#8230;<\/li><li>It&#8217;s often a better strategy to communicate a well-defined, unitary message than to provide too much competing information to the public.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Science on Television<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 147: Television and other media outlets filter science in ways that make it seem clear and decisive. \u201cAll too few television programmes offer the picture of science portrayed in these pages.\u201d<\/li><li><strong><a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/62frW6s-bqY?t=33\" target=\"_blank\">How is science usually portrayed on television?<\/a><\/strong><ul><li>Great TV but not realistic&#8230;<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Science Education<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\"><li>p. 148: Educate savvy citizens to think about science\u2014not just experiments.<\/li><li>p. 149: Current education has the view that \u201cthe grown-up world of science and technology\u201d is where perfection is.<\/li><li>p. 149: \u201cIf only, now and again, teachers and their classes would pause to reflect\u2026they could learn most of what there is to know about the sociology of science.\u201d<\/li><li>p. 149: \u201c[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.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>[Missing: \u201cPublic Inquiries,\u201d \u201cExperiments\u2026,\u201d \u201cAccident Inquiries\u201d\u2014More on these in the next book.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As I mentioned in class, there won&#8217;t be any questions from the &#8220;Afterword.&#8221; It&#8217;s a fine review, but it mainly explains Collins &amp; Pinch&#8217;s reasons for conclusions that practicing scientists disagree with. In a masterful way, this &#8220;Afterword&#8221; seals their over-arching conclusion that the path to black-boxed science isn&#8217;t a smooth, linear process, and there are plenty of disagreements that underscore the need for communication, (re)interpretation, and continued attention to science. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-css-opacity\" \/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Next Class<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Test 1<\/strong> is open on <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/canvas.charlotte.edu\/\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>CANVAS<\/strong><\/a> 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&#8217;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&#8217;t necessarily get the same questions as another classmate. Of course, you won&#8217;t know what questions your other classmates get because that would be cheating. Besides, you should be social distancing anyway. We won&#8217;t have a webpage for Wednesday, 9\/14, so use the time to do <strong>Test 1<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For next week (Monday, 9\/19), have the Prefaces and Ch. 1 of Collins &amp; Pinch&#8217;s next book read. I won&#8217;t have a page up for Wednesday, 9\/21, because I want to give you a day to catch up, but, as always, you&#8217;ll have Discussion post due every week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Collins &amp; Pinch&#8217;s next book is also available as an e-book from Atkins Library. If you&#8217;re signed onto Atkins Library, you&#8217;ll have no trouble downloading it from here:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www-cambridge-org.librarylink.uncc.edu\/core\/books\/golem-at-large\/3330B127C7B88D579435B26D8161D169\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If you&#8217;re off campus, you&#8217;ll need to search for it on the library website and sign in using your Ninernet Student ID and password.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-css-opacity\" \/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center\"><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000\">Canvas Posts: You will absolutely not receive any credit for a Canvas post below 250 words.&nbsp;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&#8217;t following this requirement, you&#8217;ll want to start following it from now on.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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&nbsp;is open on CANVAS and due by Friday, 9\/16, You take the test&nbsp;anywhere you have access to the Internet. You have 75 minutes to complete the Test once [&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-9169","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P2HAOx-2nT","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9169","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=9169"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9180,"href":"https:\/\/pages.charlotte.edu\/aaron-toscano\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/9169\/revisions\/9180"}],"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=9169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}