Read on Twitter
ON PHYSICISTS DOING OTHER NON-PHYSICS THINGS
Being good at physics doesn't mean you know how to do everything and I spent time training myself and learning from others when I picked up science, technology, and society studies. And I still see myself as quite junior in the field.
Being good at physics doesn't mean you know how to do everything and I spent time training myself and learning from others when I picked up science, technology, and society studies. And I still see myself as quite junior in the field.
When I was working on my white empiricism paper, which makes use of philosophy, sociology, anthropology, Black studies, feminist studies, and history of science: I got feedback from people working in all of those fields, including on how to use the archives effectively
My paper also went through peer review and was evaluated by an awards committee (and was a finalist!) for a title of 3 people giving me feedback and that means that what the public saw had been through extensive vetting
Just because you are a scientist does not mean you know how to do history and there is no excuse for not engaging workers in the field when you are attempting to do historical work
There is also a danger in applying the standards of scientific empiricism to a field like history
There is also a danger in applying the standards of scientific empiricism to a field like history
The way subjectivity arises in each discipline is shaped by the knowledge production processes, mechanisms, and foci of each discipline. Even what constitutes a discipline is a social phenomenon, and that is one of the ways the subjectivity arises in these disciplines
There's a lot of hubris behind the demand history be done "scientifically" according to the sense of "rigor" of a physicist or astronomer, and Sandra Harding has a whole chapter responding to this tendency of physicists in particular: 'Why "Physics" is a Bad Model for Physics'
My white empiricism paper was actually a response to a gap I saw in that chapter, but it is nonetheless a powerful "read" of the physics community, highlighting all of the ways it operates socially and not just through sheer "objective" logic
Harding's point should be well-taken, that you can't actually model how physics is done using the principles of physics.
Physicists need to have more humility when they come to the social science and humanist table and do their homework.
Physicists need to have more humility when they come to the social science and humanist table and do their homework.
I have hundreds of books in my house showing I have done mine.
Btw yes I am implying in this threat that physicists are not necessarily the best peer reviewers for a physicist doing non-physics things
I put "rigor" in quotes below because physicists always imagine themselves to be unusually rigorous and objective and that is part of why I wrote the white empiricism paper. We are especially objective compared to other people!!!! https://twitter.com/IBJIYONGI/status/1354143239415201792?s=20
The fact that a blog entry by a non-expert with (what turned out to be shoddy) archival work can make the rounds and be absorbed uncritically by a bunch of people with PhDs and "rigorous" training is **a case in point**
so I guess thanks for producing data for me, you guys
so I guess thanks for producing data for me, you guys
Anyway let me put a positive in this thread: I was *stunned* by the way historians of science and thinkers in STS welcomed me to the field, invited me to panels, offered to help find resources/edit, even though they had nothing to gain by helping. Physicists are NOT like this.
