tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post8013408718196130889..comments2023-11-03T08:02:25.369-04:00Comments on AmericanScience: A Team Blog: The Fall of Jonah Lehrer (Part 2 of 4)David Roth Singermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12841041983824755867noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-42621059280559478642012-11-21T14:21:11.373-05:002012-11-21T14:21:11.373-05:00Thanks for these Lehrer posts, Hank. I've real...Thanks for these Lehrer posts, Hank. I've really been enjoying them. I wanted to double back to this second post, which I've been thinking about all week. <br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree with you that pressures in the publishing industry reproduce some of the same distortions in writing on science as we see in science itself, and I'm all for some kind of reflexivity about and sensitivity towards our own writing and how it might be going amiss. <br /><br />I wonder how you see this reflexivity best working, however. Do you think that we need a series of (what one of my friends jokingly refers to as) "critical studies of STS"? (I'm lumping our kinds of history in the STS box here.) Or do you think this is an operation best carried out on the fly? Or some combination of those two extremes?<br /><br />I think that we would find right off the bat, for instance, that academic STS does not at all resemble the forms of democracy that it effusively espouses. <br /><br />I think the only risk (that I see right now; I'm sure my risk averse mind could fantasize up many others, paranoid-style) is that such reflexivity would just lead to more STS navel-gazing, an already favorite activity of the field that I plan on describing in one of my next two blog posts. Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14164091550633430973noreply@blogger.com