One of my classes here at the Academy (I love calling it that) studies modernity and postmodernity, especially as it applies to Russia. Up until my stay in Moscow, I have taken any notions of modernity and postmodernity as garbage, but lately I've really been into these ideas. So far I've really been intrigued by Giddens' ideas about heightened modernity, and an exacerbation of the forces that shaped the 20th century. For example, we have increased the amount of trust we place in scientific ideas, despite the fact that these ideas are always changing and are built on a sandy foundation. A simple example that I like is that of money. Money has had a simple evolution through modernity--from coinage and bills backed by gold, to the same without a gold background, to numbers in a computer representing those coins and bills, to future expectations of numbers in a computer (debt). This evolution requires that members of society trust that money will be accepted when a good or service is demanded. With the abstraction of money comes a higher level of required trust in that money.
I love thinking of the implications of this on people. In my simple example, I feel that peoples' ideas of spending have really changed quite a bit. It's also interesting to see an application of this idea in Russia--a nation that is really floundering to catch up to the western world. Continuing on money, I can see Russia moving from a cash centered exchange system to digital. They don't really use cards everywhere yet, but ATMs are as frequent as fish in a salmon run. Similarly, crediting agencies are popping up everywhere here. One problem with this is that Russians don't have the traditions of credit instilled yet. For example, no one checks the interest rates before getting a loan, no one checks the terms at all in fact. They just get a loan. How evolved we've become in the US, where we are all so careful with our debt...right?
I have ranted for too long, and so I bid you adieu for now...I leave you the idea to turn over, or throw back as it pleases you. So get out of here...can't you see we don't want you anymore!?
My first instinct was to make fun of you for writing about things that I place into the category, "topics with big words," but then I actually paid attention to what you wrote and decided I really like it.
ReplyDeleteI can see that I take a lot of things for granted. Is it bad to put that much trust into the "money" system? I don't feel like I really have a choice.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point Tyler, I am quite likable.
ReplyDeleteAnd Mary Jane, I think that's a great point for discussion. My thoughts are that it's not bad per se to put trust in the money system, and that leads to your next point-we don't have a choice. The same trust is absolutely necessary with any kind of hard or soft science be it physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, or whatever. To progress and utilize the work that's been done in these fields we need to build on the sandy foundation that has been laid, or start over. I am definitely not qualified to start over, and very few people are. Likewise, we live on these sandy foundations every day in literally every aspect of our lives. I would love for other people to add their thoughts to this interesting question. Thanks Mary Jane!
When we were thinking of buying that land in Spring City, my dad said, "They can't make more land, so it's a good investment." I keep thinking about that. We keep "making" money, so that it decreases in value. Is it even worth it to save money in the bank? Will it be worth anything later? Or is it better to put it into tangible things?
ReplyDeleteI object to your comparison of money to the tradition of science. Science is based on the scientific method, a logical way of testing your ideas. It isn't moral, it isn't ethical, it's just a method for establishing what works. Sure, there's some amount of blind acceptance required when you're learning, but if you really wanted to you could use the same method to repeat every experiment, redo every proof, and come to the same conclusions. You're surrounded by reasons to believe in science because you can turn on a light, send an email, fly across the ocean, and eat fresh bananas in winter (even in Moscow). If it weren't for the scientific method we'd be living in mud huts and eating stuff we found on the ground, with a life expectance of 20. The scientific foundations of our society aren't built on sand, they're built on thousands of years of ingenuity and a desire for progress.
ReplyDeleteAnd one more thing, it IS a pipe.
I'm not really sure how to put these ideas into words because I've never really taken them outside of my head, but here goes...
ReplyDeleteI think that Bryce was referring to "Science" rather than the scientific method - or even science. I'll try to make this a little less BS-y. Science as I'm thinking of it here would be a construct, sort of an idea, shared by most people of the world consisting of several theories, proven to various extents, but also not static. Namely, Science isn't really an idea, it also has characteristics of an institution since researchers and research institutions are also included in this construct. I'm going for something similar to the idea of the nation as an "imagined community." While I think the "sandy foundation" to which Bryce referred is the relative "unprovenness" of many of these theories (for example, evolution, but there are better, more concrete examples that we talked about in class, I just forget them), I'm going a little further out on a limb here. I think people put a lot of blind trust in Science, but as with money, that's not necessarily a bad thing nor is it necessarily something we can "opt out" of. Of course it's inherently futile to argue with the scientific method, but that's not really what I mean. For example, I think it would be totally normal for someone to say or think, "Science will save us from global warming." When, that's not true - some scientist(s), through empirical study and the scientific method, might make some discovery(ies) that will save us from global warming. But, then, it kind of is true, because this process will involve the legacy of all those theories (however "sandy"), the history of science, and it will also involve various research institutions, technologies and traditions of research. I hope this wasn't as unclear as I bet it is.
More on sandiness:
No, it is not necessarily a pipe. It is at most an image of a pipe. Further, we must make a rather significant assumption even to reach this conclusion - that the definition of a piece of art does not come from the artist, or at least not solely. However, logically, based on this assumption, (and the basically subconscious assumption that this collection of colors and brushstrokes represent a pipe) it seems rather obvious that it IS a pipe. I'm trying to draw a parallel here to science, and I hope it worked.
I'm glad I looked back on this last comment. It made me think instead about society's perception of "Science", as opposed to the actual methods that should govern the practice of science. I have to agree with Helen. When a scientific theory is presented to the public (or even to the scientific community) there is risk that it may be taken too much on blind faith, or in too isolated a view, just because it is Science. This makes Science somewhat easy to exploit.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if I am very interested in selling lots of cranberries I might pay for some scientific studies to research the health benefits of a diet rich in cranberries. The research would highlight the nutrients contained in cranberries, and how they are benficial. By publicizing this data, I may be able to persuade people to start consuming more cranberries. Is there anything wrong with this? Maybe. First of all, I love cranberries so I'd probably be right up at the front of the cranberry wonder-diet line. However, what if we slide on down the slippery slope and imagine a diet of exclusively cranberries. Such a health craze would probably prove harmful if it caused you to sacrifice a balanced diet for an all cranberry all-the-time feeding frenzy. This may seem a little ridiculous, but think back on the many extreme diet fads you've seen in the past 20 years. Be sure to include the ones based on taking pills with very scientific sounding names.
In this silly case, it's not the scientific data itself that is at fault. Cranberries DO have lots of great nutritional benefits. It's how the data is used that ends up causing the problem. In this way Science has been hijacked and used for something that is less than altruistic. Unfortunately, the history of Science, from alchemy to the nuclear bomb, shows this has almost always been the case. I guess what I should be saying is, "Wow, I can't believe we've made it this far!"