See you at the Lights

Hi all, I'm going to do 3 separate things today: a) be frivolous, b) be frivolous, c) be semi-frivolous. In an academic way.

But really, this is for fun. Admins can choose to delete this.

So, a summary of what I'll be doing, each of which have nothing to do with each other:
a) I shall argue that there's no such thing as an "internal" body of science, and thus STS students are basically studying thin air (for fun),

b) I shall be arguing that the "internal" sphere of science which STS scholars like Yearley so dearly say is "untouchable" by the external milieu is in fact, grossly wrong - instead I argue the ALL the content in the internal sphere of science is ENTIRELY dependent on the External milieu (for fun),

and c) I shall say that maybe, the internal is not all that untouchable by the external (not for fun). We need to redefine the external.

Context: Yearley reading, page 35. "... Recent sociologists of science have not, however, wished to argue that internal factors are overriden by gross social factors. Science is very often a highly insulated pursuit... ... ... Increasingly, scientific knowledge is constructed by small numbers of specialized workers. They are often very effectively insulate from broad social forces."
For my tutorial this was the key thing you see. Dr Coopman explained that hey, with regards to science, there is a a really impenetrable barrier which defines the internal sphere of scientific studies, and this is the sphere that is untouchable by your external milieu. The understanding is that: the processes in scientific study is somewhat comfortably insulated from broader social forces.

Why? I think it's got to do with the nature of study: Nature itself. Nature, being the objective messy world out there, is not man-made. I mean, the processes in the science lab are social, scientists' interpretation is social, but because the research focus is on natural phenomena, that's why you can't really say that the external wider milieu affects your research process and stuff. By concept the natural world is a thing on its own - the scientists are said to be "in conversation" with nature - and not with the human sphere. When scientists study solar waves it probably is not affected by external factors like unemployment, migrant workers and decline in birth rates.
And when scientists replicate the "Natural phenomenon" in their labs and manipulate it, this piece of nature is divorced from the outside. When you cut a patch of grass and soil from East Coast Park and put it in your room for further study of radioactive messages from Mars, it is automatically insulated from the barbeque activities, the mythologies of ghost spirits, frequent smooching sessions and of course, anti-trespassing laws.

Yay! Now that we're in context we can start the ball rolling.

a) Arguing that there's no such thing as an "internal body of science" (for fun). There's a pool of theories that are termed post-modernism. Apparently there's the notion of Hyperreality - where in the highly-mediarized world we live in, we are basically living in the world of simulations. We do not need to go down to Haiti to know that hell's breakin' loose there - we just turn on the TV and the Haiti music video featuring Maroon 5 and Black Eye Peas on Channel 5 will tell us all we need to know.

From wikipedia (for sake of simplicity): ".... hypothetical inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially in technologically advanced postmodern cultures". An example: Pornography. Guys (and girls I dare say) watch this idealized version of amour, immerse themselves inside this representation which is grossly inaccurate (how can anyone position themselves in such awkward positions for 2 hours of video time?), and for this duration of viewing, this representation becomes something real on its own; viewers start believing that sex is like that. The content of the porn video becomes a form of believed reality in itself - and thus the viewers enter "Hyperreality" - where one's sense of reality is too immersed in simulated forms of reality that are too detached from actual reality itself.

Let's see if we can equate this to Science.... Scientists rely on lots of lovely equipment, visual imaging apparatuses, intermediary devices that "translate" nature into signs and symbols that become read as a representation of the real natural world out there. It's just a representation. The problem is when scientists themselves begin believing that this mere representation is indeed reality out there. If you've read Sismondo's chapter on Studying the Lab you'll see that scientists, once finished with all the research and having written the end result - the research thesis, remove the local conditions from which the research was done, i.e. they generalise it. These scientists thus believe in their findings as reality itself.

But it's only a representation of reality they have. As scientists work in the laboratory, they rely on their instruments to render simulations of reality - which they have come to perceive as reality itself. So, in postmodernist terms, they can't distinguish simulation from reality, and when they can't, they have entered a fantasy world, the Hyperreal!

ALL Scientists of Nature have been duped, systematically, into thinking that their studies are truth. Thus the whole internal sphere of science, which is totally predicated on this fantasy world created by inaccurate representations, is a sham. The internal sphere of science is Hyperreality. Their study focuses, their experiments, their interpretations and all, basically make up the internal sphere of science, which unfortunately is all fake because it's a detached world from natural reality. It's all Hyperreality.

Therefore, there's no such thing as an internal sphere of science! And studies on the internal sphere of science is basically, thin air!

b) Arguing that ALL content from the Internal sphere of science is ENTIRELY dependent on the External milieu (for fun). I understand Yearley’s point… Just b’cos Obama’s pushing his healthcare policies, doesn’t mean that from now on, all American scientists will start doing research on health diseases and start saying that all human diseases are increasing at an ungodly rate in proportion to the accumulated stress from exorbitant hospital bills.
Yearley’s reading has got really powerful arguments. So he says that the Internal sphere of science is not really touchable by the External social milieu. He even brought up the example of Newton’s law of gravity, pg. 35: “Hessen’s argument was that the agenda and contents of Newton’s work were determined by his socioeconomic environment. Early capitalist development required certain forms of knowledge and Newton supplied them… But, … it is an unfortunate representative for sociology to have acquired.”

He’s basically saying it’s a scourge of Sociology to have taken up the “external” focus with regards to science!! Like what?? I’m here to make things straight. You see, Yearley’s thinking through the professional perspective of science. But you shall see too, that what Yearley’s done is to seriously undermine and render invisible the numerous salient ways that Internal World of Science is directly affected by the External. Basically, your scientific study results on solar neutrinos is dependent on my mum's cooking.

I shall begin to clinch the deal: Look at i) Scientists and ii) Scientific Equipment. Scientists à Yeah they’re really cool in the lab in white. They’re smooth as grease in their profession. BUT how do you think they are able to go to work every weekday morning? Who feeds them? Makes their meals and sustains them? Without a supportive Family Ideology that relegates women to child-rearing, your male scientists can never expect to commit producing scientific content in the Internal sphere of science. Without the global care chain where women from SEA migrate to host countries to take care of your children, female scientists cannot expect to work in labs without starving their children. Without fiscal policies at the governmental level favouring attractive saleries for scientists à what convinces scientists to work so hard in the internal sphere of science?

The very dependence – of the very possibilities of existence and quality and character of the content formed in the Internal Sphere of Science – on the External wider social milieu cannot be any more emphasized. Even your scientific equipment: w/o socioeconomics & strong market-oriented state policy for science, where do you get your geiger counters, your automatic pipettes, perhaps even your computers? Without interior design & aesthetic concepts of form & function, how would your laboratory look like?

Ther Internal is actually supported by an entire network of the External. Therefore, ALL content in the Internal Sphere of Science is ENTIRELY dependent on the External, wider social milieu.

c) I think we should redefine the external (semi-serious). Ok I concede. I can’t beat Yearley. Science has its own durability – the internal world in science is what makes it so strong, durable, and not all fluff, not all social construction. Because it’s looking at something not man-made. However, I think that whatever things happen in the internal sphere of science, once this piece of scientific study “leaves the laboratory”, scientists no longer have any power over its proliferation – and its use. So, in order to account for this, a refocus of what to look at in the external milieu – has to be defined and operationalized. I think this is by far the most representative statement of my thought on STS – in order to reconcile the big dichotomous battle in my mind between science and society.


Thank you.