Class Notes Wednesday 3-16
- Re-evaluate how resources are being spent (socially)—ex: $$$$’s spent on 88 year old for surgery—great choice personally. Socially, maybe not so much
- What would Haraway say about nature/nature always wins? (Japan)
- Focus on pages 331-352 in Barad ch. 7.
- What is feminist science studies?
o Intersection of fields/disciplines
§ Gender/Women’s studies
· Mostly focused on biology
· Want there to be feminism in all the sciences
- Pipeline problem
- Why aren’t there many women in this field!? “women in science”
- Women critiquing science: “women and science”
- Restructure science
- Advice for people in gender studies: remove the boundaries btw/ science and humanities… People in gender studies would be learning more about science, teach cross-listed classes, relationships with science professors. Don’t critique science without knowing what it is
- No women in science, no science in women’s studies. If you want it, then integrate them in both ways
- This class: feels less feminist now because we’re looking at gender less.
- Roughgarden – feminist science studies!
- Is this class too…separated? More boundary blending for this class to work in the way Banu stresses?
- We seem to be doing about half of what she suggested to do
- Think more about scientific practices
- We use the actual mechanisms and vehicles, but maybe we should do some experiments together
- Barad – particle physicist
o Focus on justice
o Socially just world
- Close reader is important for interacting with the text
- One on one interaction with the text
- Not your own reactions
- Pairs: what observations does Barad make of Frayn’s play? In other words, what does she pay attention to?
o Difference between characters and the interactions of the people in real life
o How they each defended themselves
o Bohr was more sure of himself
o The way that Margrethe interacted with each of them—partial to her husband (obviously)
o Repetitions of lines or actions in the play
o “If you’re doing something you have to concentrate on you can’t also be thinking about doing it, and if you’re thinking about doing it then you can’t actually be doing it” – Margrethe
o Use Bohr’s theory more?
§ Instead of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
o Took analogy too far and didn’t do it carefully enough
- Eights: What is the argument of her essay?
o “…there is a reciprocal or complementary relationship between thinking about something and knowing your intentions”
o Quantum physics displayed in their human interactions
o You can’t know your own motive until you’ve seen someone else… uncertainty
o Could have used more science to structure itself
- Groups of 14: What’s the purpose/outcome of the critique?
o Rewriting it wouldn’t have solved all the problems
o Confusing ontology and epistemology led into … if we look into quantum/science alone, it won’t answer questions of philosophy.
o You don’t fully understand it. Individual can’t fully know themselves—need to know self based on world around you…
o Physics can’t be bootstrapped into giving a full account of the social world
- Whole class: What’s the payoff?
o Be aware of the edges of your analogies
o Comparing roots of knowledge to roots of science
o Heisenberg – uncertainty principle
§ No one can know their own intentions—we have to know this through other people
o What’s the creative thing that happens after the critique?
o Foster communication and dialogue between other fields: HOW?
- Monday: What’s the specific contribution that she’s making?