Response to Science in Action Part C

Latour draws interesting analogies to bring about an understanding of his concept "Writing texts that withstand the assaults of a hostile environment." Latour says scientists need to write prose in a fashion that they are protecting their argument against the reader's strength of critical analysis. Writing in technical detail is shielding their position from being sacked by others like how a castle builds walls and moats to protect what's inside. Latour makes it feel like a battle is being raged in which an unprepared challenger will surely fail. It's "scientific David fighting against the rhetorical Goliath." Latour sees a specific structure in which a argument has the best chance to become "black-boxed." Stratification as a key element in that vision, and the more layers the better. Using visual aids in your argument allows the reader to see the evidence with their own eyes in order to come to the same conclusion. If they doubt the meaning of what they are seeing they can simply read the explanation in the legend. Latour also uses the analogy of firing a musket compared with firing a machine-gun when they are referencing other scientists. Latour compares Hall's and Packer's text as Hall being a lone wolf as one of the first baboon watchers while Packer several decades later is in a pack of scientists who not only watches baboons--but also watch each other. I think that's an important point Latour brings up. As a new field develops the first scientists are in "uncharted" territory and don't have the asset of other scientists to lean on or who are as knowledgeable about the subject as they are.

Response to "When Scientists Politicize Science"

I took several things from this article that I believe will help me in understanding further readings for the rest of the class. Pielke creates this aura around Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist and uses it as his main example to relate the linear model. The linear model which Pielke describes in the article as getting the science right before any policymaking. It's important for me to remember that through the linear model mounds of governmental policy have been made on the basis of perceived "sound science" in the past so it's become a very established path for future policy's to be made in the future. Critics such as those debating the theory of climate change know this and know the power of a resolution on a scientific issue. What critics of climate change such as Bjorn Lomborg are trying to do is push the scientific issue "upstream" and away from a resolution. The battle over climate change will likely end with the scientific resolution on it which will coincide with policy action or inaction.
I thought is was interesting when Pielke writes "one great irony of the debate over The Skeptical Environmentalist is that its fame owes more to its critics than to any fundamental insights of the book." I think that this passage will be important to remember as the course progresses. Certain instances within controversial issues don't have to provide something profound or groundbreaking as long as it strikes the right/wrong chords with the right people to be effective and/or significant.
Lastly I noted the importance of the criticism of the Cambridge University Press for publishing the book. Publishers take great risk in a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist because they are held as responsible if not more than the author's pen. I read that the book was published by the Social Sciences division of Cambridge University Press and Pielke notes that much of the debate over the book occurred in the popular media and on the internet instead of in technical journals. I wonder if the reason for criticism of the book coming from other outlets questioning the scientific legitimacy of the claims had to do with the book being social science piece instead of under another title.