Attempt #2...

When it comes to hip hop, I feel that I have a certain understanding that is my own truth. I grew up listening to hip hop in 5^th grade and have continued since. From that experience, I’ve come up with my own observations and opinions of the culture. By listening to an artist, I can tell you, though not always, whether he/she is concerned about sending a message or not. Some artists like Immortal Technique, reference historical periods, current world news, and names of famous and not so famous individuals in history. From that, I’m able to take what I find interesting in the lyrics and look for more information on the topic through the internet. I don’t always gravitate towards artists that focus on “serious” issues, but I prefer to listen to that more so than what’s on rotation in the radio. hip hop can be entertaining, but also educational. To borrow from the MC KRS-One, I love that I can find artists that promote this sense of “edutainment” through this form of expression.  I also, however, see conversations that can and do take place when it comes to discussing the positives and negatives about hip hop.

Personally, hip hop was one of the reasons I continued to be interested in learning and traveling. The artists I listened to as a teenager did portray themselves through a braggadocio that was rather violent and misogynistic, but I didn’t let that influence my character. It was through them that I began to understand the behavior of some of my friends and understand my neighborhood as well. I take from artists what I consider beneficial, regardless of their background and beliefs. Through some of their imperfections, I also gain knowledge: “There’s truth in everything, so I listen to fools,” mentioned an artist named C-Rayz Walz (a play on how not everyone is perfect, but everyone imparts wisdom through their own experiences). While I don’t fully agree or disagree with some of the arguments made against hip hop, some would debate that the music I listened to influences the youth to behave a certain way: sell/do drugs, commit a crime, mistreat women, and all the negative stereotypes associated with it. There are conversations that have produced constructive discussions, where each sees differently and is more open to the differing opinions shared. I also think that there are people who are not as easily convinced by either position, regardless of the facts that are provided. Nevertheless, hip hop can be approached from many angles that don’t render the culture useless or futile. It’s a culture open to everyone so I don’t see discussions truly damaging to this art form. Yet, if we decide not to challenge those that conform to the idea of profiting from hip hop by selling just sex, violence, and materialism, then hip hop will have lost all purpose and meaning to educate and uplift. Thus, we continue to pay tribute to the legacy of musicians and historical figures by promoting a healthy discourse on the advantages and disadvantages on this aesthetic, and reach a level of understanding. 

(For now, I leave you a link to Lupe Fiasco's new video & give you the opportunity to take a look at hip hop from a different perspective: http://theboombox.com/lupe-fiasco-lamborghini-angels-ital-roses-audubon-ballroom-video/?trackback=twitter_top)

Objectivity, Universal Truth and the Nature of Nature

In physics, we do not generally talk of objectivity vs. subjectivity in research. We expect research to be as objective as possible, and by that we mean that the researchers must make their best efforts to remove personal biases, opinions and specifics from the results. This does not mean that physicists do not have opinions or debates - we often clash in interpretations and predictions. It does mean that a result should follow the principle of repeatability. If two instances of a single experiment conducted by different researchers but under the same conditions yield differing results, we would probably say that something has gone wrong with that experiment.

So is there anything left to wonder?

Yes.

For one, interpretation matters. An example of this is with the quantum wave function, a mathematical expression of a particle's probable location as a wavy distribution in space. Some theorists believe that the wave function is a part of physical reality that happens to collapse when we measure it, which explains why we see particles behaving in wavy ways until we measure their position, at which point they are very clearly located at single points. Others believe that the wave function is a convenient shortcut for describing probabilities but has no basis in physical reality.

The questions come up even more often in theoretical particle physics, where different interpretations, such as string theory and supersymmetry, try to forge ahead towards a grand unified theory (GUT) of everything. One primary purpose of the LHC is to develop new experiments that will allow us to prove or disprove some of these theories.

On a more abstract level, I am curious about the implications of the incompleteness theorems for theoretical physics. Ideally, we would like to find a GUT that predicts everything and has the shortest possible form. We can't necessarily know when we have the shortest possible formulation of the laws of the universe, as the ability to compute the length of the shortest formulas may create a paradox via Chaitin's Incompleteness Theorem. I also wonder if Godel's Incompleteness Theorem implies that even if we measure everything measurable about the universe, we will still be able to formulate multiple interpretations with similar complexity.

So I propose that the great debate in physics is not subjective vs. objective, but a question of how we should go about working with different interpretations of experiment and to what extent multiple interpretations of the same result may depend on philosophical differences.

math and objectivity

Mathematics would seem to be the field with the most obviously objective standards of truth:  A statement is accepted as true mathematically if it is proven clearly and rationally from given more-or-less-universal axioms; it is false if there is some counter-example; i.e. some object, structure, etc, which contradicts the statement.  Basically everything a mathematician does (as I understand it) can be described as accomplishing one of these two tasks - proving a statement or finding a counter-example to it.  And so we have two nice, clear-cut boxes:  the Logically Provable, and the Provably False.  At least, this is where we begin. 

In Gödel's proof of incompleteness, he showed that for any interesting logical system (here interesting just means sufficiently complex; one example is Peano arithmetic) there are statements which are true for all objects in the system which are not provable.  In other words, there are statements which are consistent with all other provable statements in the system, and which give us accurate information about objects in the system, but which cannot be proven from the system's axioms.  I don't have the requisite background to really explain this in rigorous detail, but it throws out the two clean boxes of Provable and False.  Mathematicians don't worry about this much (most of us don't work in foundational mathematics), but yeah.  This is crazy. 

This leaves someone like myself, whose work as a mathematician informs his perspective on life (for better or for worse, haha), with the interesting proposition that not all truths in life are rationally provable.  Perhaps there are truths which I will never be able to show follow logically from necessary axioms, truths which have to be explored through art or literature or history.  In these disciplines, in the humanities, I imagine there are ways to reach those missing truths about this system which we call reality, but we will have to believe them based on something besides logic.  For they will, simply put, not be provable using logic's tools. 



I realize these are somewhat scattered thoughts, but I think they reflect one aspect of the perspective that mathematics has to offer on the question of subjectivity and objectivity.  There are certainly other aspects, and I think this is a fascinating question, but I haven't the time to think them out now.  Thanks for reading this! 

What is your small victory this summer?

Summer is winding down, and it is about to get REAL. No doubt about being frustrated on managing the demands of interdisciplinary work as graduate students, but graduate school work and life sure will be more demanding. I learned a great deal of useful information on financial management, the importance community building and reach out, funding streams, advisor relationship, and more. My SPI experience is captured in this quote, “providing that there is a problem to be solve often requires more research and more critical ability than solving it” Booth et all p. 282.  I spent lots of time and energy to just specify my independent research question for it to be unique and manageable. Coming to that step sure is rewarding. I am ready to take my independent study to the next level. I am glad I had this summer to get to know a professor who is willing to take me under his wings and mentor me through another research experience, from research proposal to publishing, if it all goes well. Sometimes, it is important to celebrate small victories in life. For me, I completed my independent study proposal and developed research question which is about  “diaspora volunteerism” and it’s impact on career development of returning volunteers.

 What is your small victory this summer? Feel free to share!!!

Thanks,

Bijoux

Week 4

With the experimentation involved in engineering, it's often difficult to have multiple versions of the truth. If something proves true after being tested under various conditions, it is generally accepted. The only tension that I can currently think of is that between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Week 4: Xuxa's Adventures With Thoughts On Objectivity And Subjectivity

I can't buy into objectivity's ideas of capital-T Truth. And I don't mean this flippantly, I just mean how can there be no address of context? Capital-T truth depends on absolutes without variations, leaving no room for exceptions. I think this is my humanities background being insufferably resistant to the idea that there can be incontestable and immutable truths that hold steady across the board, like some kind of super theory of super everything. 

It doesn't take into account the variations found at the intersections of context. For example, a 21st century capital-T truth: everyone needs a college education because it will make you successful. Well, yes and no: what about the populations that can't come close to achieving a college education, or, for whom even trying to pursue one run the risk of further entrenching themselves within the impoverishment they come from? Students who can't afford to go to college because they don't have the few thousand in tuition to begin with, nor can they even afford to take out loans to do so because they're already financially in the negatives once one examines their background, neighborhood structures, household situation, and other external forces within the framework of their existence that already, through no fault of their own, position them at a disadvantage? These are students for whom a college education can ruin them and their families forever because financial need is already so great that going into further deficit equates to not being able to not just afford food, housing, and transportation but also not afford contributing to their household's survival (if they're the main breadwinner though they may not be the head of household) or caring for other members in their family (such as students who may have elderly members at home who have biopolitical exigencies, such as medical care or hospice needs).

This is where I imagine inter/transdisciplinary research can help through its potential for revealing subjectivities in situations like the one described above. An educational researcher could examine the college frameworks in which students can and can't succeed in; a historian could explore the history of education and how the 21st century capital-T truth came to being; a statistician could show what the student bodies look like within the context of economic cost; etc. This kind of work can reveal the gaps that the capital-T truth doesn't bridge, those that it covers, and those that it never considered breaching.

Where is this reading?

Where are we to find Sandra Harding's "Negotiating with the Positivist Legacy: New Social Justice Movements and a Standpoint Politics of Method"?

 

Interdisciplinary Research

When it comes to interdisciplinary research and the education field, I think they both intertwine with each other. Different aspects of education can be viewed and researched from different aspects. For example, my writing group is looking at ESL students with ADHA. In approaching this topic, we are studying this aspect from several approaches. One member is looking at ADHA and reporting on the disability aspect of this learning disability and how it affects minority students as a whole. While another member is researching the language aspect of minority students and reporting how ESL student struggle with language barriers. A third member is researching the classroom dynamic and what classroom teaching or structures may look like when it comes to student with disabilities. As for myself, I am looking at the culture of students of color and researching academic challenges and the type of support system needed in dealing with a learning disability and ESL limitations. Overall, there is a combination of interdisciplinary research that is working together and researching a certain population through different interdisciplinary approached. In this case we have researchers from the field of education and psychology with different dynamic that are reporting on the learning outcome of ESL students with ADHD.

Objectivity and Standpoint Theory in Agricultural Engineering

Day and Gastel seem to advocate for an objective assessment when writing materials and methods. While I was told at orientation that this book was for science, I wonder if the same principle would apply to the humanities and arts. Day and Gastel also intensely focus on exactness of language and clear communication. The central idea in science is for work to be reproducible.

Like all engineering fields, mathematics and the pure sciences are key cornerstones to our work. As such objectivism is critical. Since agricultural engineering is moving in many cases towards a more holistic, sustainable view, the pure sciences and mathematics cannot be used exclusively. This is especially true when assessing social and cultural aspects of sustainability, which cannot always be satisfactorily quantified---at least not yet.

But in order to engage in sustainability, it will be necessary for engineers to look beyond the equations. I’m not so sure that everything can quantified and if it can, what about uncertainty? Does this staple of objectivity allow for speculation?

However, this does not mean that we abandon our logic or the scientific method. My statistics professor once told me that you can have a situation where car accidents are correlated with the color of leaves in the fall and that on some level, one must have the presence of mind to realize what this means. Obviously, we should not remove trees with leaves whose colors cause more deaths just because of a correlation coefficient.

The other extreme is allowing other outside factors contaminate the scientific method. When the scientific method is compromised, the measurements may not reflect reality. As scientists and engineers, we must have the scientific method as our base and build from there. Particularly in the social sciences and perhaps even in some field measurements, qualitative analysis and subjectivity are necessary for a starting point. One such project I worked on involved a group of students subjectively assessing tree damage done by squirrels. We had to look at the trees and make a subjective judgment that was then complied as data. Data can then be analyzed.

The question I would pose is if qualitative studies would ever be appropriate for pure science and engineering besides social sciences. We do use surveys for stakeholder feedback in my field. 

"Do we or do we not?" vs. "How and why do we...?"

Cross-disciplinary research is important because none of our problems exist in isolation. For example, take a look at an issue in agriculture. If immigrant populations are harvesting the majority of crops, say in California, we've automatically got a web of interdisciplinary needs that spring forth: 

• fair wages for agricultural workers-- That's economics.
• bilingual language needs for cross-cultural communication-- That's linguistics.
• the implementation of sanitation standards-- That's health.

We haven't even begun to address the use of pesticides, their potential toxicity and workers' controversial exposure to them or how climate change may impact/ determine/ influence seasonal hiring, migration and general year-round demand for workers.

It would seem that the only effective way of addressing any and all of our needs is to realize the interconnectedness that exist between them. In a sense, we've got to act as a family with multiple ties and not as individual and independent units.

My field is library science and I can see the importance of interdisciplinarity particularly when it comes to classification of source materials that will be used in research. Librarians are the people that come up with the keywords that are used to find books, articles, reviews and other documents that foment the bases of a wide breadth of publications. We are perhaps the first ones to realize that the "I Have a Dream Speech" needs to be linked to "history," to "rhetoric," to "African American" and to "civil rights" all at once. Or that "malaria" must be found in conjunction with "tropical disease," "mosquito," "Africa"  and perhaps "immunization." We're the ones who determine the associations that appear in databases and what topics, metaphorically speaking, 'rub shoulders with others.' So, an awareness, a respect for and an implementation of interdisicplinarity are of the utmost importance in our field. 

I do 'buy' that interdisciplinarity is important in my field when it comes to classification of materials. Sometimes a patron/ researcher is looking for something that s/he doesn't know exists, and this interdisciplinary "webbing" serves them in revealing sources that they may not have otherwise considered. However, I think that departments in academia are lagging in encouraging students and researchers to start their brainstorming for research from broad perspectives. For example, when a student needs to write a paper on gun control or spanking or prayer in schools, the priorities seem to nest around the paper's length and the deadline by which it must be submitted. Broader questions of interest might include, 

• Who is allowed to carry knives and for what purposes? Must they be visible? 
• Has corporal punishment been proven effective in reprimanding children and reinforcing desired behavior?
• If prayer is allowed, what does it look like? Standing? Kneeling? Heads bowed? Eyes closed? Hand holding? In what language is it to be carried out? Is it a private act in a closed space or a public one done in community?

As you can see, sometimes 'talking around the issue' can invite new lines of discussion and interdisciplinarity is in essence the study of how phenomena fit into our world.

The strength of this approach to research lies in that it leads to a better and deeper understanding of problems. It answers, "How did this problem arise?" and "How do we measure our success in finding a solution?" It eschews the tendency towards a binary paradigm of "I have access to guns or I don't"; "I spank or I don't"; "I pray alone at home or I don't." The structure just described is the easiest to understand and the most accessible, but it doesn't address the questions of "How?" and "Why?" 

So, one of the limitations of this approach is that 'the public' wants "yes or no" answers and solutions that don't exist to questions and problems that are best addressed differently. In other words, "How?" and "Why?" can't be answered with "yes" or "no." But they can be used to "dig deep" and to usher us toward more profound progress in problem-solving.