[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder

[Jenna McWilliams]

Imagine being a scientist who does their work from inside of, let's say, 
a queer and female-bodied container. You see the Scientific American 
article that Peter forwarded on and you think, well...this really isn't 
news--it's what lots of us non-mainstream (queer, female, nonwhite, 
disabled, genderqueer/transgender) researchers have known for what seems 
like forever. It's also well and widely discussed, as Miguel pointed 
out, in Science and Technology Studies. Obviously, you think. Obviously 
science is shaped by the identities of the people who engage it. 
Obviously people who work from within bodies that fall outside of the 
mainstream are sometimes attuned to phenomena that are overlooked by the 
more mainstream bodies and minds that dominate what we today call 
"science." Obviously the field needs to make room for those people and 
that research, too.

Then imagine jumping onto one of your favorite listservs and seeing the 
point of the Scientific American article equated with climate change 
deniers and anti-science creationists. It would be easy to feel 
disappointed, when encountering this on your favorite listserv--to see 
the work of those who aim to reshape science to account for multiple 
perspectives and experiences equated with opinions that are generally 
characterized as willful ignorance by those who do science.  It would be 
easy to wish this conversation hadn't gone to that place.

But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the discussion. My queer and female body 
sometimes reacts particularly strongly to certain forms of discourse and 
certain forms of arguments that others might let pass.






-- 
Jenna (Jake) McWilliams
Learning Sciences Program, Indiana University
jenmcwil@indiana.edu


> Andy Blunden <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> Monday, September 22, 2014 9:38 AM
> There is such a thing as objective truth, David. The claim that 
> asbestos kills, once established, is extremely robust. And it is not 
> just a statistical correlation, microscopic examination of lung tissue 
> can prove it. I sort of agree with what you say, David, but relativism 
> is also relative. The test of objectivity is the "robustness" of the 
> claim, its capacity to withstand sceptical criticism. Up to a point, 
> the asbestos companies were able to use the tactics - just like the 
> tobacco industry and the climate deniers - such as putting contrary 
> information, supported by those posing as scientists, into the public 
> domain to create the illusion of a "debate", and buying off or 
> intimidating those who spoke the truth. But in the end the case 
> against them became so strong that the only way the truth that 
> asbestos kills can now be undermined is by some kind of "higher truth" 
> which sublates the irrefutable truth of medical science. Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Preiss <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
> Sunday, September 21, 2014 7:11 PM
> Loved the WEIRD acronym. One of the best ironies I've seen in recent 
> scientific writing.
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
>
> Rod Parker-Rees <mailto:R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> Sunday, September 21, 2014 3:57 PM
> Great article, David - highlights the importance (at every level) of 
> being aware of what others might find odd about us (secondary 
> socialisation?).
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss
> Sent: 21 September 2014 18:31
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
>
> This article is revelant for this topic: 
> http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
>
> ________________________________
> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
>
> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely 
> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not 
> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the 
> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely 
> on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender 
> know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails 
> are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth 
> University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your 
> responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth 
> University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after 
> it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an 
> order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
>
>
> David Preiss <mailto:daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
> Sunday, September 21, 2014 11:31 AM
> This article is revelant for this topic: 
> http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
>
>
> mike cole <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>
> Sunday, September 21, 2014 10:42 AM
> The book by Medin and Bang, "Who's asking" published by MIT is GREAT
> reading. Seeing this in Scientific American is super.
>
> mike
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:18 AM, David Preiss <daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
>
>