SCIENCE!
I'm supposed to be doing my homework, but I'd rather not (c'mon, you guys, I have a Chinese midterm, give me a break :P), so instead, I'm going to write about evolution. One of my classes this year is an upper-division biology class, Experimental Ecology & Evolution (E3, for short, and I love it more than any class ever), which is giving me uppity ( Read more... )
Oh boy, this is a can of worms. You have no idea what you just stepped on, Rachel. First of all, you are ignoring a vast amount of SECULAR critiques of science and its role in society with regards to policy making. I suggest you read up on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, Sheila Jasanoff, Brian Wynne, and Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (for starters) just to see how complicated the role of the expert is in a democratic society. Because that's a real problem you will encounter -- to what extent should expert opinion override public opinion and the opinions of elected officials. The key word here being opinion, as all these are mere opinions when it comes down to the implementation of policy based upon expert OPINION. You will come to see that there even exists experts on how to handle experts.
Before I really get into this though, I'd like to state that I am not against 'Science' itself. Science has done some wonderful things. (Some terrible things, but some wonderful things.) Furthermore, I personally hold no religious affiliations. Just because someone isn't religious doesn't necessitate that they are materialists. What I have a major problem with is the ROLE that Science occupies in contemporary (and historical) Western culture. This is where, in your previous responses, you completely missed the point. The point is, Science is as down and dirty, stuck in the mire of culture and politics and emotion as anything else that's human. It is inseparable from culture.
Secondly, I was more than a bit insulted with this response to one of my posts.
Rachel, you wrote:
"...while it's nice to talk about the 'dialectic of self-amplifying
fragmentation' and the 'vain attempt to order and regiment language,'
people do actually have to live with these systems; there's a limit to
the extent to which precision is useful, and beyond that point, it
becomes an unfortunate and problematic weight on society. While one is
certainly free - and encouraged - to debate semantics to the point of
extremity, there is a difference between this and trying to base a
viable political system on semantics."
There is a vast difference between philosophy/political SCIENCE and semantics. One could say the same about scientists and their jargon. At least political science 'jargon' is self-contained and self-aware. Expression of complex ideas is not semantics, unless you're Wittgenstein. (Wikipedia him.)
And besides, my whole point was that judicial systems are based on just that. Semantics. It is the judicial use of semantics that enables injustice to exist IN THE REAL WORLD. People live the consequences of ineffective systems. You seem to think I'm seeking some sort of 'precision', but precision of what? The point is that there's no such thing as precision in language! There's no such thing as precision in human affairs! Yet we have to be aware of how JUDICIAL PRACTITIONERS use language to reinforce their beliefs. It is utterly naive to dismiss the power of language in how we organize systems of power. Because that's what law is. Power. Power of the fucking state. I'm not saying judiciary systems don't function. They function. All systems 'function' to some extent. But you have to ask yourself HOW they function and if you agree or not with HOW they function. It's not enough to say they do or don't function. This is the simplicity of "common sense" I hear you and Sarah throwing around. "Common sense" says something is one way or the other. It's a culture functioning on "common sense" that thinks they can call a 2-party system a democracy. Now don't get me wrong, I know Canada's not really a democracy either. True democracy is impossible to implement in cultures as large as ours. So we have oligarchies. Rule of the few. But don't tell me anything more complicated than a 2-party system isn't functional, because it is. Look north of the border. We have a popular political party running on the platform of separation from Canada!
But I'm getting off topic. Science is what we're debating, and what we were debating on Sarah's thread.
Reply
Leave a comment