Hey guys,

Sorry for double-posting, but here’s the link to a NYTimes article that I was discussing with my philosophy friend, which talks about the decline of humanities and the need for the fields to be remarketed.

Chris

Hey guys,

Greg has inspired me with his pieces to share some of my thoughts that I wrote about in an Op-Ed article for my school newspaper.  Let me know about some of your thought on the issue. (Might be a bit long…)

*************************************************

The Race for Race
By Christopher Eng

Spanning the skybridge, the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship conveyed a clear message with their poster campaign: race matters, racism still lives large.  In celebration of Black History Month, club members set up several stations with two posters surveying students about the effects of racism that they experience.  The strategy was simple. One poster explored negative external consequences of racism, such as joblessness, poverty, and death.  The other listed emotional experiences, including depression, low self-esteem, and anger.  Students participating in the survey were asked to first review the various external consequences of racism and to place a dot sticker on each one that applies and then repeat the same process for the other.

In light of absurd post-election claims made by various media outlets that racism in America is over, the posters bore a staggering number of multicolored dots, as diverse as our society itself.  Partaking in the survey myself, I felt blessed to place stickers on only two of the external circumstances.  However, the second poster was another story.  I found myself placing a sticker under every single emotion.  What are the implications for those who have suffered more material consequences of racism, when I, even as privileged as I have been, found myself experiencing multiple instances of feeling negative emotions?  The complex intersections among race, gender, and class that form the texture of society still needs to be explored.  Outside of my courses as an Asian American Studies minor, this was one of the rare few instances that I observe a discussion on race outside of the classroom.  With budget cuts impending, what will happen if the administration cut classes from ethnic and gender studies departments that are already in pitifully poor and neglected conditions?

The race for race is quickly losing ground in academia, especially within the CUNY system and in Hunter.  The neglect of ethnic and gender studies by administrations across the educational system seems to suggest that they too deem these issues irrelevant.  When I visited my public high school last month, several teachers were debating whether or not students should have a day off from school for Chinese New Year.  The principal insisted that he supported the notion, but that the students should organize a petition if they agreed.  My response to him is the same to all: “The onus should not be on the students.”

Unfortunately, the same indifference and lack of understanding exists even in higher education. I am sure that my high school principal would regret his words if students actually did organize.  Speaking from personal experience with CRAASH, any student action is considered radical by administrators.  Simple actions such as petitioning, meeting with administrators, and coordinating a conference were too much.  As much as I would like to say that we are now a post-race society and that the effects of race are exaggerated, the truth states otherwise.  Assumptions based upon race and gender are ingrained into the way society thinks and functions, bearing profound socioeconomic, political, and cultural implications that must continue to be discussed and studied within and without classrooms.

Budget cuts do not justify the need for cutting ethnic and gender studies programs.  Claims that everyone must make sacrifices during tough times would merely reinforce histories of marginalization.  The world wars told women that they must sacrifice chances for liberation under the male ideology of patriotism.  War and patriotism again deemed it necessary to racially profile and intern Japanese Americans.  Yet again, they appeared to contain the cries for Civil Rights for need of organizing against Communists in the Cold War.  The relation between budget cuts and the vitality of ethnic and gender studies is not and should not be a simplistic one.  It is reductive to assume that the former should automatically undermine the latter.  The administration needs to know that there are alternatives and find them so that we are able to survive through these tough economic times, while maintaining the integrity and diversity on which Hunter College prides itself.

Although it should not be the responsibility of students to have the great education that they deserve, student action is needed now more than ever.  Action is not necessarily radical.  Just make sure that your concerns are heard and addressed by your administrators.  If any one of you or your loved ones have or continue to experience the potential debilitating effects of race, stand up in support for them.  We have come so far.  Now is not the time for regression.  Having fully functioning academic departments and programs on ethnic and gender studies is vital.  Students have a right to ownership of their education.  Voice to your administrators your support for ethnic and gender studies before they make the choice that it is unimportant for you.

Join us for a screening of the new one-hour documentary Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist, a true story by Richard and Carole Rifkind about the struggle to become a scientist and the satisfaction of discovery. Mixing humor with heartbreak, the film tells an intensely dramatic story about a trio of irrepressible student scientists who are guided through the emotional ups and downs of a Ph.D. training program by a tough but genial mentor.

The U.S. is falling behind in the production of new science Ph.D.s. Is there a crisis looming? A discussion with laboratory scientists that follows the screening will allow an exchange of ideas on what’s needed to maintain an ample pipeline of future scientists.

Moderator:
Robert Krulwich, National Public Radio

Panelists:
Prof. Joy Hirsch, Columbia University
Prof. Ben Ortiz, Hunter College
Prof. Susan Zolla-Pazner, New York University

Free, but reservations are required: visit the event listing and click the icon or call 212-817-8215. (There will also be a standby line at the event for seating on a first-come, first-served basis.)

The Graduate Center
The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10016

While talking with a fellow named Aaron Gavin today, a crisis in my personal philosophy of science arose.

I genuinely find a great deal of truth in Paul Feyerabend’s claims, particularly that scientific thought is not absolute truth.  Specifically, I believe this is based in the fact that we cannot look at science, or anything else for that matter, with a truly objective opinion–everything we do is anchored in our pre-conceptions of what is true.  For this reason, Feyerabend suggested that we isolate each field, and protect them all from each other–that is religion, natural science, social science, and politics (at least in a true and just democracy).  Frankly, the idea of a political system isolated from science literally makes the hairs on my neck stand up.  Not to insult any-one’s political views, but imagine the past eight years’ policy on science at a ten-fold magnification!  That’s just plain scary!

Now, this lead me to think, that the fields need to influnce their overseer (politics), but perhaps they shouldn’t completely control it.  Feyerabend agrees with this in Against Method, stating that religion and science should have some control of their governance.  However, he says a true democracy would keep them equally weighed.  I simply cannot accept that philosophy–I have to believe the secular and natural world needs to have more direct influence to overcome crisis (‘God helps those who help themselves’).  I know this goes right against Feyerabend’s (and in a sense Kuhn’s) logic that we often back up our scientific ideas with facts AFTER coming to our conclusions.  Take the observer-bias confound in psychology, that’s a prime example of this fact.  Still, I have to believe that science is the closest to valid truth that we can substantiate.  At this comment Aaron did what he usually does and made me put my head in my hands, unable to answer with a response–that’s through my own point of view!  How on Earth can I safely make any conclusion about philosophy, truth, or science.  I then fell back to Descartes’ basis of truth on the certain existence of thought.  I think, therefore science is the best solution (I think more in science than I do in religion).  This doesn’t work either, as it limits my world view and conclusions to the world of my own thoughts, whereas the truth about true truth has to be generalizable, otherwise is isn’t true!

If your head isn’t exploding yet (cause mine was), I am running through the thought that you cannot justly separate religion and science, and you cannot claim one is better (contrary to Richard Dawkins).  Both are heavily anchored in human thought.  Religion places the emphasis on something(s) higher than us (and its/their existence), while science places the emphasis on natural truth(s) (and its/their existence)–but if you think about it, what is the difference?  In the end, every conclusion is based on some intellectual leap of faith.  I’m reminded of Xeno’s paradox, how can you safely make that intellectual jump without foreknowledge of the result?

In short, I think I need to schedule a tea time with the pope, Richard Dawkins, and Isaac Newton to really sort this out for myself.  Until then, does anyone else have a thought on this?  It may seem silly, but this is really bothering me–short of rejecting the ability of humans to understand truth, I have no real answer to this…that REALLY scares me.  If the tree falls, I know it has to make a sound!

-Greg

PS; Never talk philosophy with a philosophy major if you have an open mind, it’s just not healthy!  Also, I’m really sorry about all the cliches and odd analogies I use–it’s the result of a mind trying to express itself within the limits of a language.  It’s really cool to see how this has been one of the limiting AND driving factors of classical science!

So, to those of you who go to BC will probably agree with me that dealing with the red tape is a part of daily life when dealing with the administration.  I think I have figured out a clever way around it!

I have been hunting down a source of funding for NCUR that I can access, and frankly it seems that every one’s coffers are empty (the Scholarship Office has shut down all new scholarships until the Fall of 2010), that is all but the Brooklyn College Association!  Each semester a significant portion of each student’s technology fee goes directly to the BCA, and from there money is spread across the campus to a variety of small organizations.  When I joined the e-Board of The Brooklyn College Public Health Review last semester I heard that the BCA actually has a very large cache of money set aside for student traveling.  I don’t know how large it actually is, but I know it exists.  I have spent the past week and a half trying to hunt down this legendary pot of gold.  This quest came to a pause in Central Depository this afternoon, when I found that BCA funds are only accessible to clubs that are approved by the CLAS Student Government and/or the Academic Club Association.  Basically, I can’t touch it alone, or even with a small group–at least not without a bit of creativity.

Now, when some people come to a wide river they need to cross, they go right ahead and wade across, others will swim.  While I love to swim, I don’t like getting my clothes wet.  I have another philosophy (borrowed from the US Army Corps of Engineers)–build a bridge!  In short, in the final 4 months of my undergraduate career I am starting yet ANOTHER club, specifically modeled after our thesis class.  ‘The Pre-Professional Student Society’ (or whatever it will ultimately be named), will be a club open to all undergraduates working on some major research project, or looking for professional development by attending conferences in their respective fields.  I am literally putting this thing together in the next 24 to 48 hours.  I already have a good deal of backing from the administration, so I think this crazy idea may just work.  In short, if any of you need more funding for NCUR, or even just want another line on your resume, contact me ASAP.  I am getting signatures for the first ‘meeting’ of the club, I will have the constitution drafted later tonight (if anyone wants to see), and most importantly I need at least one other person who has completed Executive Training and is not a treasurer of another club  (at least not on paper).  My plan is to install myself as president of this club, unfortunately everyone else I know who has the training is in charge of funding for another club or organization that would cause a conflict of interest by signing up as treasurer for this one.  Basically, Roy, Jesse, and Milushka, are you interested, and do you have the training?

By the way, if anyone ever wants to hear a rant, ask me how the system of student activities and funding at Brooklyn College is very much like a feudal system.  The parallels are absolutely astounding!  I’m not criticizing any individuals in this, it’s just that as a whole, this machine is getting a little rusted and squeaky.

-Greg

Please see my comment on the Valentine’s Day post.  Sorry to keep going, but here’s another bit of a rant.  It’s not entirely pertinent to my thesis, at least not in the sense of clarifying my argument and conclusions.  Rather, it’s a bit of thought on the validity of neuroscience even now.

I think it hit a nerve, so now I’m thinking a bit maniacally about the role of neuroscience in our society.  Bear with me please.

The ability to discern a person’s mental state seems to violate some basic tenet of human interactions.  Understanding someone else’s life experience without actually being that person seems to violate some primitive form of trust.  This has been a big issue since the birth of neuropsychology’s antecedent, phrenology.

While I must say a phrenology bust would make an AWESOME addition to the pile of odd and nerdy stuff on my shelves and desk, those things have a very dark history.  Because we thought we understood behavior, and thought that it correlated with bumps on the surface of the head, horrible atrocities were justified.  People were deemed criminals at birth, insane, and whole ethnic groups were deemed psychologically inferior–phrenology and eugenics were easily entwined.  What’s scary is that this type of behavior, thinking your opinion is valid and hurting people with your misguided conclusions, has happened countless times throughout history.  What’s even scarier is that it’s really hard to see that happening as it occurs, hindsight is 20-20, but foresight is sadly near-sighted.  Can you imagine how many things we have wrong now?  Imagine how horribly we could be botching things up with our day-to-day lives, imagine what science is wrong!

I think it was Feyerabend that said science has the potential to be as oppressive as any medieval church.  If it wasn’t him that said that literally, whoever did say it was heavily influenced by him.  What if our conclusions are wrong about the brain, it’s not that hard to imagine.  The role of neurotransmitters was only discovered in the past century, and the folding patterns of RNAs were within the last decade!  That means that a good deal of our modern neurological medicine is based on relatively new conclusions.  Imagine the costs if we’ve got it wrong.  What about savants, or autistics, schitzophrenics or sociopaths?  Imagine if we’ve got it wrong and the solution to their problems is a simple one that our science has us blinded from seeing.  I must wonder, in ten years or a century, will some uppity undergraduate look back and see the work that I did and scoff, citing the flaws in my logic that would be clear years from now.

I need to think about this more.  I promise I’ll organize my thoughts better before posting here next time.

Just a parting thought and story.  Sir Ronald Fisher was a statistician who came up with something called the f-statistic and the f-test (both major pillars of modern research analysis).  There is a commonly held story of how he came up with the chosen values for something statisticians call alpha levels (they are the real basis behind drawing a conclusion in most research).  Basically and alpha level sets an arbitrary threshold for the likelihood that experimental results result form chance.  The story goes that after he gave a lecture about his new f-statistic and the concept of alpha levels (named differently at the time–he had some modesty it would seem), a reporter or a student (depending on the version) asked him before getting into his coach (or onto his horse) what level alpha should be set to.  Fisher then replied ‘One in twenty’, and forever since, science has rejected conclusions based on 1/20th certainty, and accepted others.  Don’t worry, the most important stuff (like industrial research) gets a 1/100, and if you’re lucky a 1/1000 certainty level–pharmaceuticals often go up ten times that.  Imagine though, all the half-correct theories, or even correct ones, that were simply unlucky.  By that logic, one of every twenty rejected hypothesis could still be right (one in ten if you consider two-directional alpha levels, but that’s for another time).  How true is science then?  Is it really safe to reject an idea based on beautiful, yet oversimplified mathematics?

Here is an article entitled “Anti-Love Drug May be the Ticket to Bliss” from last month’s New York Times that I thought might be of interest on this strange day of celebrating all things romantic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/science/13tier.html?n=Top%2fNews%2fScience%2fColumns%2fFindings

Happy Valentine’s Day to all of you! Lee

Hi everyone,

It has been a little while since I have come across a piece of scholarship that has radically altered my approach to thinking and writing about the two works in my thesis.  I have recently gained a greater familiarity with the concepts of Lacan, which have had this effect on me.

One of the key sections of my thesis is discussing the experience of the protagonists within the interior and how they create a new, separate sphere of experience for themselves that challenges the conventional notions of temporality, history, and experience itself.  I am now contemplating on whether or not Lacan’s theory of the 3 Orders (Imaginary, Symbolic, and the Real) may shed some new light upon my argument.  It might be that his concepts may not apply well to the two texts at all, but for now, the possibilities are very appealing and exciting to me.

I will be taking a closer look at the two texts to consider if the Lacanian model is applicable.  I might even look into some variations of the model as well.  As of now, there are several conceptual obstacles that I foresee in pursuing this path.  Language plays a significant role in Lacan’s theory.  I must reassess the role of language in the texts and how it may or may not correlate with his idea of the symbolic and the signifier.  Lacan’s ideas also seem to be somewhat problematic as regards feminist theory.  Perhaps responses of feminist critics to the Lacanian model may be more applicable for my thesis.  This will also be something that I must examine further.

Sincerely,

Chris