[-empyre-] genetics in the media
sdv at krokodile.co.uk
sdv at krokodile.co.uk
Mon Oct 29 07:23:24 EST 2007
After some further thought and another rereading of the related pages...
The problem with this appears to be the definition of science which is
(p58-9, 65) so much vaguer than your related definition of
psuedo-science. Here on the list you have said that there are a number
of defintions of the scientific method, but actually I really don't
think that Foucault's is one of them.
I think as we get the end of October it's this which bothers me the most
. Whereas I think what bothers you the most may well be the
Judith Roof wrote:
> Thanks for the leads, Steve. Of course pseudoscience may or may not
> have been involved in the actual identification of genes or their
> effects--and, well, pseudoscience has discovered a few things in the
> past--like a continent or two. But then there is pseudoscience as a
> calculated shot n the dark and then there's pseudoscience like
> "crystals" or like finding the gene for playing with trucks.
> On Oct 26, 2007, at 8:49 AM, sdv at krokodile.co.uk wrote:
>> Two interesting articles in the New Scientist issue of the 27th October.
>> The first is a piece by Robert Sternberg on the Watson case. Which is
>> an exemplary critique of Watson's position which occupies a position
>> which makes a social and political critique based on science, rather
>> than as some of the responses have been based on respect for
>> heterodoxy or greatness.
>> The concluding paragraph is especially nice: "The problems with out
>> understanding of intelligence and race show that the criticism being
>> levelled at Watson is based ons cience rather than political
>> correctness. Intelligence is clearly a more complicated issue than
>> standard testing allws. And race is a socially constructed concept ,
>> mnot a biological one. It derives from peoples desire to classify.
>> Whether people with genetic predisposition toward fatness will be
>> classified as a seperate race remains to be seen..."
>> The second article which i think will be of especial interest to
>> Judith is the article 'Why the long wait for tailored drugs?' written
>> by Peter Aldhous with a subtitle on personalised medicine. Which
>> supplies some examples of genetic research which have identified
>> specific genes CYP2C9 and VKORC1 which effect the way that current
>> drugs are metabolised by the people who have these genes. What is
>> especially interesting given the context is that the article explains
>> the social and economic context of the science. But and it's quite an
>> important but, it also raises categories of knowledge that are
>> missing from the discussion. The obvious one being the lack of an
>> argument against the concept of psuedoscience, for example the
>> article precisely, if unknowingly shows the way in which what might
>> be understood as psuedoscience produces usable technology.
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
More information about the empyre