Darlene McCoy
Karen Barad
FMST 80K
20 April 2011
Week 3 Readings
I took Helen Longino’s piece as evidence for the fact that not all background assumptions are bad, and that they are, in fact, necessary for good science. A person cannot determine any information by a hat being on a table, or a state of affairs. Information can only be attained by said person assuming something about it, and then testing that assumption to determine if it is true or not.
I especially liked Hartouni’s piece because it really illustrated Donna Haraway’s thoughts. The story about the man named Virgil really helped me see what she was saying. I’m of poor eyesight, like him, and I remember quite clearly what it was like to put glasses on for the first time. The whole world was brighter, more colorful, and much less blurry, but it was completely weird to me for quite some time. It took a while for me to get used to the much less blurry outlines of figures. I got my glasses at the end of the 3rd grade. I cannot imagine living life near blind and then suddenly being able to see. I feel like I can understand Virgil’s confusion when he opened his eyes after the operation. Through the years, I’ve learned to see. He had no years to learn.
Donna Haraway also especially spoke to me due to a class I took last quarter. We had read a piece by Gayatri Spivak, which essentially said, “Though humans may never have the ability to communicate every exact word and feeling with one another, we must try. There is substance to the communication we do achieve and we must not throw it away due to it’s lack of complete credibility.” I connected that statement to what Donna Haraway wrote about objectivity, and feel like she is saying much of the same thing, just about a different subject, among many other confusing things!
No comments:
Post a Comment