tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post788296013895290737..comments2023-11-03T08:02:25.369-04:00Comments on AmericanScience: A Team Blog: "Specimens" in the New York TimesDavid Roth Singermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12841041983824755867noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-14615139203143700092011-02-10T10:34:50.051-05:002011-02-10T10:34:50.051-05:00Hi Lukas:
So, no, I think you're right to poi...Hi Lukas:<br /><br />So, no, I think you're right to point out that we don't want to assume the alignment (ideal or real) between the two, though I think there are two ways I might respond to your point:<br /><br />1. Even if the right model is an economic one (though you know what I think about the contingency of the rational-actors-wielding-cultural-resources model you're drawing on to a certain extent), we might want to figure out how scientists are able to convince the public to fill their pecuniary needs. The question still stands, right.<br /><br />2. Let's say they are aligned or that they could be: it's possible that our vocabulary, evacuated of moral or spiritual terms where science meets society, would fail to capture certain valences of that alignment or the influence of one upon the other. Nay?<br /><br />Lukas, I always appreciate when the philosopher in you comes out (Beginning with "Sorry").<br /><br />HenryHanknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-5679793999735971592011-02-10T08:53:07.830-05:002011-02-10T08:53:07.830-05:00Sorry, are you assuming that the interests of scie...Sorry, are you assuming that the interests of scientists and those of the public DO align? I mean, of course they might align in any particular circumstance. But is there any reason to think they must align? <br /><br />I guess my own preference is for a quasi-economic view. Scientists want resources because that is what helps them do their work, write papers, get tenure, satisfy their curiosity, etc. To get access to more resources they usually have to make arguments about the utility of their research. Now, I'm not saying those arguments are necessarily or always going to be disingenuous. I personally know some conservation geneticists who I am convinced are motivated primarily by the desire to protect biodiversity for its own sake. And I'm sure there are cancer biologists who are motivated by a desire to help patients. But this need not be so. And in the end I am not sure it matters very much. What matters is that you manage to convince government, the public, or some funding body that your research will contribute to the greater good, regardless of what your own views on the subject are. <br /><br />What about the humanities? Why do we invest resources in people who, say, spend their lives studying Shakespeare or Donne? Sure, you can make some argument about the utilitarian dimension of this research, but I guess I feel like the benefits of this work has more to do with being interesting than having a material impact on our world. The same, I think, goes for a lot of natural history research.Lukashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05686764806913124506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-3358322656928517682011-02-08T22:10:44.396-05:002011-02-08T22:10:44.396-05:00Hi Dan: All of these seem reasonable, though I was...Hi Dan: All of these seem reasonable, though I was reaching for something more than the utilitarian framework (material benefits), as Wilson has and as, I think, Conniff might.<br /><br />As to whether naturalists need to "re-convince" the world - I think they might need to *convince* them. The mid-century physical sciences moment you point to was *part of* the marginalization of natural history, and a redefinition of science in the public eye (at least to a certain extent) can help explain the problem. <br /><br />Whether ""taxonomy is legitimate as experiment" is something else entirely, to my mind. I see the point about information, though that makes them akin to archivists, who have their own problems with the public interest..Hankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02841787256060612291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-57610585424426685992011-02-08T19:46:39.451-05:002011-02-08T19:46:39.451-05:00Henry: Isn't the optimal script in this case a...Henry: Isn't the optimal script in this case a variation on the one that the physical sciences adopted mid-century?: Basic sciences leads to better living. For the specific case of species, I imagine you can point to medical advances, drugs discovered, etc.<br /><br />Or it may be that naturalists need to re-convince the world that natural history counts as science, that taxonomy is as legitimate as experiment.<br /><br />I wonder, however, if it wouldn't be even smarter to think about natural history as "information" work. Make naturalists kin to googlers: people charged with organizing the world's information.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217832960135325575noreply@blogger.com