Captain Obvious reflects on Fleck…

For my graduate course, Writing for Electronic Communities, we are asked to respond to the week’s reading(s) in our blogs. This week’s title: The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, by Ludwik Fleck. The book uses the development of  “facts” about syphilis, of all things, to bring forth the truth about how facts come to be accepted as, well, facts.

So, here is Mr. Fleck in a nutshell: “The explanation given to any relation can survive an develop within a given society only if this explanation is stylized in conformity with the prevailing thought style.” Reading to page 2 will tell you that a scientific explanation does not stand a chance of survival unless our culture is ready for such an explanation. Okay, then, Captain Obvious, tell us why we want to read a book about syphilis in order to arrive at what seems to be such a simple concept?

 I know, I know, who wants to read a book about syphilis? Why  not read about the discovery of a planet or the birth of a star…or genetics…or, I don’t know, maybe  a new species of frogs? Actually, there is a solid explanation as to why syphilis is one of the most perfect topics to treat when considering how facts develop and become accepted by society. Historically, morals, values, and religion have influenced whether or not certain scientific “discoveries”  or theories are ready to be “discovered” at all. That a discovery was made or a theory was developed based on experimentation or studies of any kind, regardless of how scientific and exact  such research was, only partially determines whether that particular discovery will thrive in a scientific community. Why? Because our cultural surroundings and thought patterns literally get in the way of some ideas; if we are not ready to accept an idea or discovery, then that idea or discovery will literally be disallowed to exist or prosper.

Now, maybe the ideas of cultural influence and stagnant patterns of thought (Fleck calls them thought styles) are obvious enemies of scientific advancement, especially in controversial areas of, say, sexually transmitted diseases. But, if we never read about, talk about, and acknowledge that we are getting in the way of our own futures, how will we ever overcome the obstacles of our own brains?

What I most appreciate about what Fleck is saying is that it takes a heretical thought or idea to eventually bring change, that what is at one time considered heresy has great potential to develop into fact, just not until the masses are ready. Perhaps Fleck explains this concept even better when he writes, “Heretics who do not share this collective mood and are rated as criminals by the collective will be burned at the stake until a different mood creates a different thought style and different valuation” (99).

I also dig the part about experiment and observation. In section 2 of chapter 4, Fleck brings up what I think is a valid point about experiments: “And when experiments become certain, precise, and reproducible at any time, they no longer are necessary for research purposes proper but function only for demonstration or ad hoc determination” (84). RIGHT! And that is precisely why I have always been so frustrated on lab days in science class: because the experiments were useless on the grounds that they were not experimental AT ALL if the teacher already knew what was going to happen. The experiments were demonstrations. UGH. So, if there are foregone conclusions, then why bother with a study at all?

 What does any of this have to do with syphilis? Well, while scientists were studying syphilis, its causes, its effects, and its close relatives, their so-called experiments and discoveries were more than muddled by thought styles, cultural influences, assumptions, etc., etc., etc., as is the case, according to Fleck, with the birth of any scientific fact.

Sure, we’ll catch up to science, but not until we’re good and ready!

Which makes me think….hmmm….I might be onto something. Maybe we read this book for a technology course because we have a lot of catching up to do with technology. Try this one on for size: Sure, we’ll catch up to technology, but not until we’re good and ready!

Quality time in the open area!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FINALLY!

So, in my graduate course, Writing for Electronic Communities, there is a whole lot of cyber-submittal going on. Paper is out and remote access of faraway servers from my home PC is in! I have been having some major problems accessing the appropriate cyber filing cabinet, let alone posting my work in the appropriate areas. BUT…(drum roll please)…tonight I FINALLY ACCESSED THE ROWAN SERVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I spent all kinds of time updating my assignments….and, I’ll admit, a few moments just staring at the open area with pride and disbelief. Really, the open area just looks like a blank screen with a little yellow folder (much like any folder on any computer drive). The idea here, though, is that the open area is on Rowan’s server and NOW, SO IS MY WORK WHERE IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE…ON ROWAN’S SERVER.

Let me offer a million thanks to my grad school peer, GAVIN, for helping me out on this: Thanks x 1,000,000!!!!!

Are racial and religious discrimination mutually exclusive?

I was eating dinner with my family last night, and I mentioned that a principal with whom I recently interviewed made reference to God in one of her e-mails to me. She said something about praying that God helps us make the right decisions (presumably in the hiring process). My mother quickly responded with,”That’s probably a good thing,” to which I readily agreed. How refreshing, I thought, that there is a person out there who is confident enough in her position and her faith to make mention of God. I was neither offended nor put off by her reference to God. I simply mentioned the religious reference at the dinner table because it stuck out as a confident, unguarded thing to say in a professional e-mail.

My aunt then chimed in with a story about a born again Christian couple with whom she is friends. She said that the couple is afraid that their children will date and/or marry Catholics. Now, Catholics are Christians, and, correct me if I am wrong, but part of the Christian faith is to love thy neighbor, regardless. (Okay, so maybe I’m naive in my interpretation of the Catholic faith.)

HERE’S THE CATCH: This white couple has three children, two of their own and one African American child that they adopted. So, these people who must certainly frown upon racial discrimination are, themselves, discriminating on the basis of religion? Is that even possible? Don’t you want  to sit down and talk with these people? Ask them questions…try to figure them out…get inside of their heads? I feel cheated: On one hand I want to congratulate this couple for having overcome what so many people see as a barrier of race. On the other hand, they are unable to overcome what they see as a boundary of religion. How does that happen? Are racial and religious discrimination mutually exclusive? Can you be so deeply opposed to racial discrimination and so deeply involved in religious discrimination? Isn’t the ACT of discrimination the problem?

As for religious discrimination, go ahead and ask me in this post 9-11 society if I am okay with Muslims. YES. I know that those Muslims who are not extremists worship a peaceful and loving Allah. There are Roman Catholic extremists out there too. I am no more likely to appreciate the sentiments of a Roman Catholic sexist than I am to appreciate the sentiments of a Muslim extremist.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his book, Blink, makes some interesting points about racism and thinking. He says that in order to avoid racist thoughts and tendencies (even subconsciously), we need to surround ourselves with all different kinds of people. In other words, we must develop meaningful relationships with all kinds of people in order to base our impressions on real experiences rather than to defer to the stereotyping that surrounds us. Malcolm Gladwell, by the way, is one of my new favorite authors. Check out Blink and The Tipping Point.

That’s it…I’m taking the plunge.

As a public educator, I am so stinking afraid of having a blog without monitoring posts. Well, not any more. Okay, that’s a lie, but I’m going to rearrange my controls so that the people of the world are more likely to post. Wish me luck! I’m feeling rather silly talking to myself this whole time. Are put off by my security controls? Let me find out… Here’s to electronic experimentation!

Oscar Mike

As my US Marine husband says, we’re Oscar Mike, which means “on the move” in his military speak. I’ve mentioned before that we’re in the process of relocating. Have to tighten up the house (clean, refresh, etc.), sell or rent the house, find a job, resign from my position, graduate from Rowan’s MAW program, find a place to live in VA, etc. etc. etc. (could go on forever with etcs.). In the midst of this craziness is possibly the craziest thing of all: I’m doing much of the legwork on my own, as my husband has already pretty much established himself in VA (albeit in temporary floating housing–our boat!).

 Every time I try to talk about moving, Gerry says, “First, you need to find a job in Virginia. We can’t do anything until you have a job down here.”

So, I’VE FOUND A JOB!!!!!!!!!!! Now, we’re officially Oscar Mike (on the move). This weekend is prepping the house (some more painting, a few new switchplates, and, most importantly a PROFESSIONAL PAINTER to fix the bathroom that I messed up painting–whoops!).

So many of my peers in graduate school, specifically those enrolled in ”THE PROGRAM” (That’s what we Rowan University grad students call Rowan’s Masters in the Art of Writing program) are either Oscar Mike or planning on a big move (if not geographically, then career wise). I would like to offer these words of encouragement: The hard work most certainly pays off! With credentials like the ones that we’re building RIGHT NOW as we work through our degrees…well, let’s just say that I was proud to present my CV in my latest interview and even more excited at the response that I got.

 Sure, it’s a jungle out there in the mean old job market. But, all of the hard work pays off…

SNOW Boating

I’ve heard of show-boating, but I’ve never experienced SNOW-boating until just now. As I write, I am sitting on our boat on the Occoquan River in Woodbridge, Virginia (about 20 miles outside of D.C.) and, yes, the docks are covered with SNOW!!!!!!!!!!! The boat is a toasty 70 degrees (actually had to turn down the heaters because 75 was roasting us).  Not sure how I’m going to feel about going up to the marina showers tomorrow, but, for now, I can say that snow-boating is priceless. I never imagined in a million years that I would be boating in February (at least in this area). Until this year, I had to throw temper tantrums to get the boat commissioned by my mid-April birthday. I guess things have a way of working out. Last February, my husband was in combat. This February, my husband is here, on our boat, in the snow, with me. NICE…

P.S. I’m not running away from my life in NJ…just down here for a JOB INTERVIEW that happens to be tomorrow! Can you cross your fingers and still blog?

No video yet, but found a priceless pic…meet my new friend.

From  the BBC’s website (today in pictures): “A newly-born North Island Brown Kiwi, the 1,000th reared as part of a rescue programme in Rotorua, New Zealand, poses for the cameras.” I’m getting one. Tomorrow. Or this weekend. Maybe never, but I want one. Really badly.

Etienne Wenger’s communities of practice makes perfect.

I don’t know where we even heard this, but my sister and I used to have a joke that went something like this: “You know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna tell you what I’m gonna do.” And that was it. For some reason, those words cracked us up every time.

 After having read Etinne Wenger’s Communities of Practice for my graduate course, this joke is not so funny. The organization of the book is the joke. In every chapter and section, Wenger spends pages upon pages telling us what he is going to do and then several more pages telling us what he has allegedly done. About three quarters of the way into the book, it dawned on me that the problem is not necessarily the constant repetition, recapping, outlining, looking back, and looking forward; the problem for me is the overall organization. Here’s why:

There are several key concepts presented in the book: community, reification, negotiation, enterprise, participation, meaning, identity, engagement, alignment (to name but a few). Each of these concepts comes up over and over and over again, but in relation to several of the others. The book reads more like an index than anything else. Now, I understand that Wenger has put his own spin on many of these concepts, but why not begin with a simple glossary type set-up and then delve into each concept in its own chapter? Why not fully discuss the implications of negotiation as it relates to all other concepts and then move on to an in-depth discussion of participation?

But, alas, I was able to negotiate my way through the book and come out with a few things to say about the actual content:

1. Is much of what Wenger is writing here common sense? Is there anybody out there who does not get the concept of communities of practice after having read the first few pages of Wenger’s book?

2. (This one is more content related.) Wenger’s closing comment on “The Dual Nature of Belonging” is this: “It is not impossible to be a feminist in a Catholic household and identify with both, but the level of negotiability will demand some work” (209). Yes, from a first-hand experience, YES. But, even more than the feminist/Catholic thing, I seem to have a few other “dual belongings” going on that don’t necessarily jive, conservative/public educator not being the least of them.  Then again, how would I negotiate anything other than conservative politics with my military affiliations/belonging? Negotiability is a nice word here. You go, Wenger!

3. (Do you really want to read another rant?) Regarding the trade-offs of alignment: My father often struggles with his conscience, his work ethic and his bosses/coworkers over the fundamental issue of “the clock.” For, in union work, you do what you can do until it is time to go home. That’s it. No staying late to finish the job, not unless you’ve been asked or told to work overtime. You work until the end of the day (3pm for my father), you put your tools down, and you walk away. BUT, my father thinks more of his work than that. He wants to stay and finish a job that will only take a few more minutes or, God forbid, an hour. He wants to do what’s right for the job, for the building, for the customer, for his conscience. If doing a job right means staying a bit longer, my father wants to put in a few extra minutes to get the job done, and done right. His ideals and work ethic are unpopular; that is to say that the rules of the trade do not align with my father’s work ethic. So, the trade-off (leaving when he is told to leave, dropping his tools even if the job is not done) leaves my father feeling “powerless.” As Wenger puts it, “It [alignment] can be a violation of our sense of self that crushes our identity” (181). Well said. Anyone else making trade-offs in the name of alignment?

Is there such a thing as unblogging?

Because if there is, I’m tempted to unblog my last few posts. BUT, in the true spirit of blogging, I’ll just explain. I’m feeling much better now (I think the professionals call this particular state of mind “manic”). Ironically, what made me feel better was being productive. Like I said: I’m doomed to a life of constant motion.

If I could find and figure out how to post a funny, meaningless litting video, I’d post one to make up for my Dr. Doom posts as of late. Let me see what I can do here…(might take me a few days to figure this out).

On a positive note…

My dogs are cute and my mother is here to help me pack up for moving. Guess I can’t stop today. Maybe another day. Maybe never. I’M A DOER…DOOMED FOR LIFE.