Final Entry

I had a final entry planned that was sort of shaky but luckily I received an email from Flower containing some guiding questions that I would be more than happy to answer.

The technical aspects of clean diesel technology in both the Audi and BMW campaigns is at the forefront. Specifically because these brands are positioned for a more educated consumer they do not try dumb down the facts too terribly much and often site their sources. The introduction to the BMW Advanced Diesel site (direct link here: http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/BMWEfficientDynamics/ExploreAdvancedDiesel.aspx#intro) includes a weekly tally of statistics that would be affected if people were to be driving diesel powered vehicles. Further in generalized tech is explained including the use of ultra-low sulfur fuels, the methods used to "clean" the diesel exhaust and the low lag of the ball bearing turbochargers. These are a few of the proto-scientific claims used to make diesel more "thing" like in the eyes of the American consumer. There's a heavy emphasis on explaining how and why diesel has matured to a level where it has overcome the drawbacks it once faced and is on equal footing with gasoline. Picking out each claim (it's smelly, slow, loud, etc.) and systematically explaining these away it manifests the concept as "thing like".

As for drivers making circulating reference in their work on the track I'm happy to say they do! Well known tracks are analyzed thoroughly outside of the car by the driver when speaking to the engineers working on the vehicle. Often times utilizing a map (similar to this one: http://www.bmwheaven.com/images/stories/image_gallery/motorsport/nordschleife.jpg) where corners, distances and radii are clearly labeled and documented they work with the engineers on how to set up the vehicles specifically for each corner and elevation change. The driver speaks in terms of "it pushes on corner 7," which the engineer interprets and translates into a 3 degree adjustment in caster for the front wheels. The driver then takes the adjusted vehicle out and feels the difference between the two set ups, much like the iterative process involved in the scientific method. The driver keeps a log of all of this notes whether it be hesitations on hill climbs or understeer on a decreasing radius corner he uses his finely tuned instrument (his body) do monitor the performance of the vehicle and then put it down in a readable form for the engineers to decipher and implement as improvements.
It is also interesting to note that on tracks that are changing or are not familiar to drivers such as in rally racing there are co-pilots who have notes with a measurement scale for upcoming obstacles. The co-pilots use a 1 to 5 scale for severity of corners along with notes for crests in the road, debris and other obstacles the driver will encounter. Here's an example, the engine noise is loud but the co-pilot can be heard if you listen closely:

Ken Block's 2009 100 Acre Wood Rally Run from Andrew Didorosi on Vimeo.

Pandora's Hope

To frame the except from Pandora's Hope for myself I'd like to use an (familiar) analogy. The track as laboratory. Latour says, "I thought I was deep in the forest, bu the implication of this sign, '234,' is that we are in a laboratory." Just as Latour realized he was in a "minimal" lab, race teams - like those in F1 - find themselves on the lab of the track on a regular basis. Every effort is made to create an effective and extensive R&D lab in the field. Just as the restaurant owner numbers his tables and the botanist numbers the trees, the driver numbers the corners of the track, without these references these scientists are lost. A driver is certainly a scientist, as the pedologist works with the botanist the driver works with the engineer to perfect their science and research; each one taking the others references on building on them. The driver makes a reference to a sharp nose-in on corner 13, the engineer interprets this reference as an adjustment of .3 degrees of camber to the rear wheels. Why are people concerned with the research and reference of the predologist and the driver? Money of course, and the prestige that comes with a new discovery or winning the championship. Trickle down tech from F1 research is a big economic factor. Many common features today were originally found on experimental F1 vehicles. Having the edge in the auto industry is directly akin to having the edge in applied sciences. Advancement and research equals money. Whether that is an attractive offer or not is up for debate, however, that about the human factor? The pedologist is still a person who has expertise and a passion, he wouldn't roll dirt round in his hands and taste it is he didn't. Just as the driver rolls the car around the track and feels each bump and g-force. The scientists is lost to thwe forest while the driver is lost to the track.

Latour Ch. 3

Drawing on my previous example (which will be a trend, I fear) there are some interesting arguments pushing the debate over clean diesel. Auto manufacturers are launching extreme campaigns to convince the American public that there is virtue in diesel technology. For example, Audi's TDI (http://www.truthinengineering.com/tdi/) campaign is seeking to demystify the misconceptions people harbor. Here we see the money pressed into service to get the black box of diesel pushed back upstream (at least in the US perception) and the conception of sustainable clean diesel downstream. Attacking the arguments directly with research and testing is costly but in the long run it might pay off for both the struggling auto industry and the environment. BMW has, at great cost, set up a similar campaign including using diesel pres vehicles that highlight how far diesel has come since the stinky cars of the 70s. Will the efforts of these brands be rewarded and will the cost of pushing their arguments downstream and into the minds of the worlds most fickle consumers pay off, or will misguided environmentalists win out in their call for zero emissions tech? A valid argument is that diesel is a band aid which is an idea that could be called midstream, it is a concept that would require a lot more money than perhaps any group is willing to throw at it to move it in their favor. It's intriguing that a concept could be neutral in a discussion such as this and depending on who rolls the ball will determine how the argument descents and the strength of its persuasion. Audi put an intense amount of money towards convince the vocal minority of auto enthusiasts by running a TDI car in Le Mans for three years. The money and research that has to go into the program exemplifies the trust that is put in by audi and potentially by the end consumer; for who this is ultimately done for. Who determines the true validity of these efforts.

Latour Ch. 1

In Latour's first chapter there is a strong focus on the debate over knowledge claims. It's masterful how he uses the very method of convincing he is arguing is used to make his point. By utilizing what he is describing simultaneously his claims manifest powerfully and it's difficult to not agree with him by the end of the chapter.Leaving it open for discussion like the example he gives grant his model a great deal of validity and simply by discussing it here and in class we are validating it even further; clearly Latour is very confident in his model for this very reason. In the first example of the MX missile each sentence is given varying degrees of verisimilitude to draw the lines of his model of going upstream and downstream. These knowledge claims are in the fate of their context and how others handle them, whether they are pressed upstream or downstream. The worst case scenario for these claims is that no particular party is interested enough to push it up or down at all, whether it be a black box or completely out there claim, if they are not discussed they perish. "Facts don't speak for themselves," as Latour puts it means that the very acceptability of any claim is dependent on whether or not people are willing to take it up and discuss it; taking black boxes and moving them back upstream or taking the exceptional claims and attempting to move them downstream.
If I may use my own example in a field I have more experience, let us discuss fuel efficiency. Conventional wisdom in the United States is that one needs to reduce engine size and hybridize to achieve the most beneficial results both economically and environmentally. If we more this claim upstream we see that there are many alternatives, some of which are much more sound, to this "black box" formula. Diesel for example is a very viable alternative to greatly improve miles per gallon but has an unfortunate stigma in the US due to much older technology, most conceptions of which are no longer even remotely accurate. Biodiesel is highly touted but increases the cost of other domestic goods and could be a net increase in costs. Analyzing hybridization directly one can see the many downsides to batteries and their environmental impact. Just by looking at the issues in this fashion I am illustrating Latour's model and putting it into motion, both validating unpopular claims and pushing "facts" back upstream.

Opening Pandora's Box

Regarding “Opening Pandora’s Box” I would like to focus on the Janus model that is presented. It is a fascinating system to use to illustrate the opposing – but sometimes surprisingly similar – views of the young and old science, the established versus the open-ended. The first diagram displays the dichotomy of the view points. The old being in favor of Ready Made Science, the hard and fast traditional approach, while the young represents Science in the Making, there here and now of science and the forward thinking application of those concepts. In figure I.2 we have the left expressing his desire to get the facts straight, this concept is certainly well established in the context of finding the structure of DNA. The facts are gathered from the texts but this presents a problem for Jim and he realizes that the right side, the young, proclaims that one should get rid of all the useless facts which is required to begin to fathom DNA’s true structure. In this way the views are not all that different and by seeing it both ways a clearer path is evident. I.3 brings into question quality and efficiency. Creating a debugging machine may be the most thorough way to proceed but certainly not necessarily the most efficient. The economic aspect of the machine and the discovery is more evident than ever here and unfortunately efficiency is forgone in favor of economics. Perhaps most interesting is the argument presented in I.5, the difficulty in finding truth. On a purely meta-level these are fundamental ways of attacking knowledge verisimilitude. “When things are true they hold” and “when things hold they start to become true” on the surface even sound similar, but at their core are the view that time affects knowledge differently and the absolute value of truth. The left sees the facts like the structure of DNA, as always being true, it has always been and always will be despite what we believe .; but the young sees this system in the opposite way, as things are not absolutely true until time proves it otherwise it was never true to begin with and the truth cannot be absolute. These concepts are at the heart of progressive and retrospective theory.

How Environmentalists Lost the Battle Over TCE

In Vartabedian’s LA Times article he pitches the EPA against the defense complex in a battle over TCE exposure and cleanup. Although this is an excerpt, so I can’t speak to the full article, it doesn’t seem to establish just how carcinogenic the substance is. Although it says it is 40 times more likely to cause cancer than previously believed, but 40 times zero is still zero. The findings seem intentionally glossed over. I’m not suggesting that letting carcinogens be released is a good thing, just that the alarmism over what might amount to a relatively minor threat may not be warranted. At a couple points NASA – themselves scientists – are pointed at as propagators of the malady, but conventional wisdom would suggest that if they are as enlightened as the EPA they would be onboard to help the cleanup. NASA suggests, along with the Energy Department, that greater proof is required that these substances are harmful before costly cleanups are launched. Obviously this is a politically charged scientific debate, the problem with the article proper is that there isn’t enough actual science presented for a reader to take a side, their side is already presented for them without the ability to choose for themselves. It is unfortunate that this is the paradigm politico-scientific debates are presented in popular media. Issues such as this deserve a more balanced presentation of the facts rather than an obvious ploy to create a lopsided debate with a clear slant. The issue at the heart of this is one that deserves attention, but not as a sob story for the EPA and how they are being bullied by other departments of the government, they’re all part of the same government and should be treated and held accountable as such.

An Imagined World

In response to An Imagined World: I’d like to see where the entirety of this piece goes and manifests itself; I have always enjoyed and been fascinated by the romanticizing of fairly mundane but clandestine goings-on in the urbanized and modern world. This short cross-section whets my appetite for seeing the inside of the world of science, not being a hard-science major myself these are all new things for me. Although the rudimentary aspects I was privy to, the way this pieces puts what is usually “glossed over” into very understandable and visceral prose is enchanting. To be reminded of the vast legions of hard workers who are responsible for perpetuating the entire scientific complex is a powerful notion; no matter how many episodes of “How It’s Made” I’ve seen it never crossed my mind that after the experiments are over there must be a complete staff to sterilize and clean the facilities to make ready for the next experiment. Even the description of the lab at night with the ticks and clangs is a powerful and shrouded world. Evoking the repetitive and endless nature of the experiments at the end of the piece stand to really drive home what is required to achieve the “scientific result” that so many lust for. I’m glad this piece was included along with the more technical writing that illustrates the connection between science and the political and economic worlds, this work serves the connection between science and the human world where lives of people meet the mechanical but spirited, stirring world of science.

Framing Science

In their article Nisbet and Mooney call for scientists to “deemphasize the technical details of science when trying to defend it.” Understanding that using a slant, like any media outlet does, to paint science in the most beneficial light possible is important, granted, but to deemphasize the technical aspects is a critical error. Without the technical detail science sounds like any other argument made in favor of one ideology or another, informed and educated individuals will latch onto these aspects and sort the importance of the details ahead of bickering and slander. Initially in the article they seem to divide up Republican views of science and Democratic views. Why they do this is to show that people are in denial of the UNIPCC’s findings and derive their information from sources that only tell the story via their view, but as far as I can tell no connection is drawn directly between the media outlets reporting this information and the opinions the respective party members hold. It seems this might be in poor taste due to the fact that they go on to criticize scientists for attacking religious views when attempting to present the facts that are important. I agree completely that the scientific community needs to think more critically in the way they approach the public and the way the media portrays the findings. It is often that when a scientist and a religious official are brought on any sort of media they are there just to create a ruckus and cause problems rather than intelligently discuss the facts. However, it could be argued that the two are incompatible so it would behoove scientists to avoid any sort of confrontation with an unfalsifiable source such as a religious fanatic that is clearly set up for ratings and not progress. Science should emphasis the progressive mindset instead of allowing for the trifling encounters set up to create a spectacle. By positioning themselves in a way that is much more public relations savvy science could create a more direct, open and clear line with citizens who would greatly appreciate the genuine nature of such an interaction and undoubtedly benefit from it in their personal decision making.

Note: previous posts will be added soon due to initial blog set up problems.