Class Notes Wednesday 3-16

Gentech notes 03-16:

-          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

§ Sociology

§ Gender/Women’s studies

§ Sciences

·         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   Ethics

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

-          Quads:

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

o   Complementarity

-          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?