I woke up at 5:30 this morning for the Greens' wom*ns breakfast. That's no mean feat on a winter morning, particularly when, thanks to GOVT2603 I was already quite sleep deprived AND with no weekend on the horizon. So I was a bit grumbly as I got on to the bus, vowing to never attend another one of their events if I got bored at this one... but it was really good :) We discussed something that's been on my mind recently. A girl studying vet science from the Animal Welfare Society was complaining about the faculty and how strongly they were resisting to her attempts to inject some moral feeling the department and address some of its practices. I found it strange that this would even be a point of contention in the vet department, I mean they are supposed to be people that dedicate their lives to SAVE animals after all. The conversation branched off into scientism, which interests me a lot as an arts student who constantly has to defend my choice of studying the humanities around other Indian people. Unless they've just been stunned into an awkward silence when I mention what I do... which is fine, really, it just saves me the bother.
Science is not apolitical. Nothing is apolitical. It shouldn't be allowed to form its own ideology in society, because abstracted from its implications on the real world it can be profoundly destructive. I read a book by David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist last year, describing the reductionism inherent to how we conceptualise science, focusing on microsystems instead of learning to understand the world, or even an organism as a complete system. This fragmentation leads to a distorted, mosaic version of reality, which hinders our ability to coherently draw connections between our actions and their implications. Reductionism also fosters the attitude that science is value free... which is really, really not true.
Vandana Shiva's (I LOVE HER) critique of modern science and its acceptance as a universal and value free system:
Shiva was a prominent nuclear physicist who became a really important figure in the chipko (tree hugging) movement of the 1970s and now she's an ecofeminist. She won the Sydney Peace prize a couple of years ago.
I came across this quote in a tute presentation this week and I thought it was amazing:
"Science gives us no answer to the question, what shall we do and how shall we live?”
- Leo Tolstoy, 1898
Frankenstein stands as an important case in point. Read it
I guess what I'm saying overall, is that we need to stop thinking about science as something which exists in its own bubble, and stop allowing scientists to pretend it is. What also pisses me off the most is when we allow its positivism to leak into other disciplines... like economics, which is underpinned by mechanistic models, social darwinism. There's plenty more to say because it's a subject I've been thinking about for ages but I'm really tired and I have class early and I'm a bit strung out for many reasons. I probably shouldn't have even started writing this in the first place and just slept. Sleep deprivation tends to numb my brain and my 7 day (mediapol) week is a bit crazy. AND I have a string of 21sts. Speaking of which, I'm sorry but I just had to delete the previous post...
Science is not apolitical. Nothing is apolitical. It shouldn't be allowed to form its own ideology in society, because abstracted from its implications on the real world it can be profoundly destructive. I read a book by David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist last year, describing the reductionism inherent to how we conceptualise science, focusing on microsystems instead of learning to understand the world, or even an organism as a complete system. This fragmentation leads to a distorted, mosaic version of reality, which hinders our ability to coherently draw connections between our actions and their implications. Reductionism also fosters the attitude that science is value free... which is really, really not true.
Vandana Shiva's (I LOVE HER) critique of modern science and its acceptance as a universal and value free system:
Instead, they view the dominant stream of modern science, the reductionist or mechanical paradigm, as a particular projection of Western men, originating during the scientific revolution. The privilege of determining what is considered scientific knowledge has been delegated by men, and for the better part of history restricted to men. By and large, this has led to the alienation and stigmatization of women as non participants. The machinist metaphors of reductionism have socially reconstituted nature and society.
courtesy: wiki :p
Shiva was a prominent nuclear physicist who became a really important figure in the chipko (tree hugging) movement of the 1970s and now she's an ecofeminist. She won the Sydney Peace prize a couple of years ago.
I came across this quote in a tute presentation this week and I thought it was amazing:
"Science gives us no answer to the question, what shall we do and how shall we live?”
- Leo Tolstoy, 1898
Frankenstein stands as an important case in point. Read it
I guess what I'm saying overall, is that we need to stop thinking about science as something which exists in its own bubble, and stop allowing scientists to pretend it is. What also pisses me off the most is when we allow its positivism to leak into other disciplines... like economics, which is underpinned by mechanistic models, social darwinism. There's plenty more to say because it's a subject I've been thinking about for ages but I'm really tired and I have class early and I'm a bit strung out for many reasons. I probably shouldn't have even started writing this in the first place and just slept. Sleep deprivation tends to numb my brain and my 7 day (mediapol) week is a bit crazy. AND I have a string of 21sts. Speaking of which, I'm sorry but I just had to delete the previous post...
