http://butdoesitfloat.com/474885/The-very-definition-of-the-real-becomes-that-of-which-it-is-possible

hall of human origins

The Hall of human origins was actually one of my favorites. I personally like when there are several resources to interact with , in this hall we could actually learn through different ways. it had a progressive and and effective way to lead the audience through the exhibition Starting with DNA , then fossils, Dioramas and migration etc . more over the museum's website has a great educational site for the human origins , showing and explaining all of the resources in the hall . i think hey have approach the subject very carefully and well done .

http://www.amnh.org/education/school_groups/hall.php?id=149

Interesting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/science/04angier.html

no place on the family tree!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/science/28hobbit.html?ref=science

Museum Visit highlight

An interesting fact I noted from last thursdays visit to the Hall of Ocean Life-

Male Parasitism

"In a world where finding a mate is no small feat, some Anglerfishes have evolved an extraordinary strategy. The tiny male angler searches for a female by smell, then bites into her and becomes permanently attached. Eventually his month fuses to her body, his gut degenerates, his blood vessels merge with hers and he becomes little more than an attached sperm sac available at any time to fertilize her eggs. In some species females have several males embedded in their bodies"

-we talked in class today about differences in race/gender/genetics/cultures/everything-

For angler fish, the roles seem pretty distinct.

enjoy.

In the reading "Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order and the Construction of Nature" I found it very interesting how Asma explained how one interbreeding population gets transformed into two different and reproductively isolated populations. This was something I had always wondered about and I thought he did a thorough job in explaining it. Asma's personal accounts of various world-wide museums was very interesting in relation to the AMNH. It makes me think of the permanent skepticism of this science, and how all museums of natural history will forever be challenged, questioned and forced to explain themselves and/or change things based on public demands. The fact that science will continue to advance and theories will continue to be revised or disproven, makes for a tough job for modern museums of natural history and science.

In chapter 6, I found the statistics about creationism vs. evolution beliefs shocking. For some reason, I thought that the general population was becoming more open-minded. Clearly evolution theory wins the debate with hard evidence. This quote really struck me, "Snobby urban college boys like me are looking down their noses at the hardworking middle-class rural folks who have built their lives on family values and belief in God's plan, and we're calling them unsophisticated bumpkins." In someone that disapproves of religious theories and does side with the theory of evolution, I believe that Asma's words represent the truth in many ways, but at the same time, these so-called bumpkins are part of an isolated species in themselves and that should be considered when harshly denouncing their views.

Response 4/26

Reading both the chapter on Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order and the Construction of Nature in the book Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads by Stephen Asma and the article Human Evolution – Genus Homo – Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins by John Noble Wilford made me think how anthropology is a puzzle on multiple levels. Beyond the physical puzzle of piecing bone shards together to reconstruct a body part, there is the historical puzzle (the evolutionary timeline) and the sociological puzzle (the cultural and genetic overlap) of how these ‘parts’ fit in with others. Each researcher views the puzzle in his or her own way, putting the pieces together as best as they can, then offering their view to the scientific world. It is a painstakingly tedious process, one that might mean dedicating an entire academic career to pieces together one jaw bone.
As Asma noted, systematist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin had an interesting approach to the problem of ambiguity of overall similarity. As stated, ‘the subject matter of biology is historical, which means that it matters to the understanding of such entities where they are located in space nad when they are located in time’ (Asma, 184). For example then, is it not confusing when the AMNH in NYC takes the Cladistic approach to displays, rather than the historical? Is it not making the puzzle exponentially more complicated to present this data in more than one format? Are we not doing the entire field a disservice as we alternate between methodology as we educate the general population on evolution? It seems to me that we are creating more confusion. The Cladistic approach, moving through nested boxes does not serve the purpose of fitting the pieces together in my opinion. It compartmentalizes them, into the box where they fit best.
As more and better tools are developed that aid in this work, the puzzle will become more clouded, with multiple interpretations and decision points needing to be rethought. To make the statement that ‘[we] are relentlessly optimistic that we have all the information we need to answer our big questions, but just haven’t figured out the order in which to connect the dots’ (Wilford, 5) simplifies the process to the lowest level providing a baseline that everyone can understand, but also leaves begging the question of when and how will we know when the ‘family tree’ is complete.

Mario Cedeño Response 4/26

Chapter 5 of “Stuffed Animals & Pickled Heads” titled “Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order, and the Construction of Nature” explores the idea of evolution and how museums choose to display evolution within their collections. I found it interesting how different natural history museums around the world take different approaches to displaying evolution. The American Museum of Natural History for example stresses cladistics, while the Natural History Museum in London emphasizes Darwinian evolution, and the Grande Galerie in Paris emphasizes mutation. Asma writes, “It has to be remembered here that these contemporary differences between evolutionary museums are matters of emphasis, not complete exclusions or of inclusions of subjects” (Asma, 199). I think it is important to note that the museums do not ignore different ideas of evolution but that they emphasize certain theories.
Another point I found interesting in the reading was the increasingly prevalent role that biodiversity plays in natural history museums. When reading this section of the book I thought about the Hall of Biodiversity that we visited on the last museum trip. In this hall there was a large emphasis on environmental destruction and preservation while making clear the vast diversity in our planet. I thought it was interesting that the main message in the Grande Galerie in Paris is biodiversity, which they incorporated throughout the museum. If the AMNH followed the lead of the Grande Galerie and incorporated the idea biodiversity throughout its plant and animal halls then the museum would better educate the public about some of the issues that are affecting our world today.

Reading for 4/27

Tonight's reading made me think about the ways the dinosaur exhibits at the AMNH are laid out. Now understanding the museums use of cladistics, I realize how exactly they inferred those rooms to work. In looking at the history of the museum I think this makes a lot of sense. The cladistic method (although incredibly fixed) is very literal and characteristic of the absolutist approach we sometimes associate with the museum. This also makes sense specifically when explaining evolution, which is so mistrusted as a theory, to the public, that having a very literal and less observational method of organization may seem more trustworthy. However, as I experienced that space I didn't really have a collective idea of how these animals/vertebrae correspond or differ. Like Asma, I had a Russian dolls experience with how I interpreted each room. This is where Ghiselin's theory seems very applicable, seeing as he not only examines similarity, but more importantly difference. I found the part about humans need to group things that are similar to be really interesting especially in correlation to the museum. However, Ghiselin points out that this is all relative to a point. By that I mean objects can have multiple similarities, but it's their differences, and levels of difference that makes ones ability to group things incredibly ambiguous.

museum 4/22 hall of biodiversity and ocean life

In the very beginning of the Hall of Biodiversity, there is a short movie about all of the earth's creatures and plants. It is not necessarily spreading the message of conservation, but the movie is very honest about the damage that humans are causing to the earth's natural equilibrium. It brings me to question what the role of humans really is and what can be done to reverse the damage that has been done to this planet. There is just so much junk here. Even if there were to be another astroid strike or something equivalent, could the earth recycle and renew? Or will it just be eliminated completely. The question of weather humans are separate or a part of nature is unanswerable but one thing remains clear: humans take up most of this planet, so weather they are a part of nature or not, the two are interconnected. In the exhibit, there were many areas discussing the efforts to sustain the rainforest and how the local people were disregarding these efforts by logging, poaching, subsistence farming, and illegal diamond mining. This made me think of the Tsing reading 'This Earth This Island' and how indigenous rights have become entangled with conservation initiatives. There is no easy solution. The rainforest can provide, but it also needs to be protected; protected by humans from humans.

Network theory

Hey guys, I saw this on a blog I like to check out. It's artworks, but they are prefaced by a quote about Network Theory which we discussed a few weeks back:

"In network theory, a node’s relationship to other networks is more important than its own uniqueness. Similarly, today we situate ourselves less as individuals and more as the product of multiple networks"

It's kind of interesting seeing this theory in relation to art. Images and a link to the blog are below.








Click for Blog.

Natural?

Front page of CNN.com today had an article that is very related to what we were talking about in class yesterday- so I thought I'd share. Couldn't figure out how to re-post the video, but you can check it out on the site.

The bulk of the short video discusses the new technologies and methods being used in the rebuilding to make the town green and sustainable But the parallel made between the tornado storm and the 'storm of rebuilding' made me question if one of these happenings is more natural than the other?

Reading 4/20

I really enjoyed Ereshefsky's writing style. It was structured in a very clear way which made it understandable (unlike some of the other readings). It was an outlined collection of questions and answers, but it progressed in a fluid and relevant way. He included a lot of different quotes and ideas, but none of them were long or boring.

I agree with his main point that discussing what is natural and what is human is a waste of time when talking about preservation. The whole idea of labeling things as natural and human seems pretty pointless- we can't communicate with other species, so we are just labeling ourselves to ourselves, and we can't even agree on a definition within our species. Whatever we do will be natural and human. We devise and study our own history- thinking about human culture has becomes part human culture. So discussion of this sort of seems like a distraction from being/doing. It is more important to think about what we can control/do something about. And this is the point Ereshefsky is trying to make (in this case about choosing what to preserve).

The special tour last Thursday of the Anthropology wing of the Museum collection was really fun. Although I have read about the ways in which every item is stored, seeing the storage system first hand was really amazing mainly because I could see the huge effort it took to design and construct this collection of 540,000 objects. I also appreciated the fact that our guide (I’m so sorry I forgot his name) cared so much about the preservation of these objects that he has been working on it since the seventies.
The most interesting part of the museum was the smudge room, the only room in the museum where a match can be lit. This relatively small room was built so that indigenous groups that visit the museum can perform smoke ceremonies. The room itself is very sterile, similar to the other parts of the storage facilities and yet various important rituals take place periodically in this room. He also said that groups come to the museum to perform smoke ceremonies on some of the objects in the collection, meaning that according to these indigenous populations, these objects do not lose their spiritual significance when they are removed from their place of origin. But when I saw all the objects themselves placed in climate controlled metal cabinets within the storage facilities, they looked so out of place, very far removed from their communities.

Biodiversity 4/19

Stories passed down through generations form the basis of history. It is incredibly interesting to think that stories also inform biodiversity as well. I never thought of discussions of agriculture taking place in social context , as Anna Tsing discusses in her article “This earth, this island Borneo” from Friction: an Ethnography of Global Connection (Princeton University Press, 2005). I can relate to the premise of the article – that as the year 2000 approached (a milestone certainly) there was a need to list ‘all the contents of this earth, this island Borneo.’ That is a credible attempt to understand and document biodiversity, as well as contribute to the history of the times.

For Uma Adang to attempt to list the thousands of species of plants (and animals) that inhabit this island is an incredible undertaking, but to combine them into a story that relates agriculture, personal preference and social context is intriguing. I never thought of biodiversity in the framework of cultural and geographic diversity before. Sure, it occurred to me that we don’t have the same type of plants in Illinois as they do in say Africa, but I thought of it in terms of agricultural efficiency and taste preferences; more along the lines of economics of the cash value of a crop, or juggling the most protein available for the lowest cost or adapting to poor soil and unique labor conditions. But to think of biodiversity as filling a cultural link is to view it in a whole new context. As Tsing notes, production of rice is the centerpiece of the Meratus swidden field. But it is the diversity of the field that truly tells the picture of the culture. The Meratus grow many kinds of crops for the diversity they value in taste, and because it increase the chances of a good harvest. Following the scientific reasons for an improved yield are the social reasons, for experimentation, for trading vegetables, for discussing the yield and ways to use them.

In many cultures, rice is not only the staple of the diet but a source of societal stability. Just as the Eskimo have many words for snow, in Feudal Japan there were many words for rice. Its use ranged from a source of food to a means of currency, from glue to paper. The social uses for food only tie to the biodiversity of the planet. The bigger picture, as Tsing notes, is that the knowledge of nature is always cultural knowledge, whether we are scientists or farmers. The social bond that is achieved through agriculture brings together diversity on many levels. An understanding of bio, cultural, social and ethnic diversity can all be tied together through something as simple as agriculture.

Response 4/20

As others have pointed out, the Ereshefsky article brings up an issue that has been discussed frequently in class--namely, whether we can objectively claim that humans are in someway separate from nature; that our actions (some of them at least) can be considered unnatural. Ereshefsky uncovers the fallacies of this way of thinking, and goes on to discuss the effects that they have on environmental preservation. He claims that the attempt to differentiate between humans and nature is in the end only a pointless distraction from the goals of conservation, and concludes by saying that we should instead determine what parts of the environment we want to save based on other criteria, and then get on it without wasting time pondering useless philosophical questions.
This logic seemed contradictory to me. I agree with the fact that we cannot say that humans and nature are wholly separate entities--although we do have certain differences from other animals--and I agree that this difference should not be the grounds for considering which animals to save etc. However, applying this type of deconstructive ontology to Ereshefsky's conclusion is problematic: how should we go about deciding what aspects of the environment are worth saving?

response 4/19

Marc Ereshefsky's "Where the wild things are" definitely has some interesting points about nature and humanity, and what makes something natural. Are humans natural? Is what we do natural? The text shows several different sides of the problem, and quotes both those who think humans & our behavior is "unnatural" , and those who disagree. What seems to be an irrefutable fact, however, is that humans are in some way or another different from other animals. Though we are still mammals and have come from this Earth, it would be difficult to argue against the fact that we've had a profound impact on the rest of the planet. Though other mass species extinctions have occurred before;
"According to Ridley (1993, p. 613), between 5 and 23 mass extinctions have occurred since the Cambrian period. All of these mass extinctions occurred before the existence of humans."
these were caused by things other than a species of animal.
The debate over whether certain aspects of human culture/behavior are natural and others unnatural is also raised, with one scientist (Katz) stating; "All human activity is not unnatural, only that activity which goes
beyond our biological and evolutionary capacities... In this sense, then,
human actions can also be judged to be natural – these are the human
actions that exist as evolutionary adaptations, free of the control and
alteration of technological processes."
It seems that the definition of "natural" varies greatly from person to person, and it is certainly a difficult concept to have a definitive opinion on. Can something be unnatural when all the building blocks come from the Earth? We humans have evolved naturally, so how can anything we do be unnatural? We have, however, greatly changed how the world works. Sometimes I feel as though humans are becoming a little too presumptuous when it comes to our importance - the recent natural disasters, and the current state of Europe, should remind us that there are still forces beyond our control.

Mario Cedeño Response 4/19

In, “Where the Wild Things Are: Environmental Preservation and Human Nature” Marc Ereshefsky brings up interesting questions and issues regarding what divides humans from the rest of the natural world. Ereshefsky highlights the major arguments in the debate; one argument considers humans part of the unnatural world, highlighting human’s distinctive nature. The opposing view argues that humans are natural and highlights what is distinctive about humans. This debate brings up interesting issues such as what determines something to be natural or unnatural, and if that should be the determining factor in environmental preservation. Others issues are brought up such as should the distinguishing factor in determining natural from unnatural be human’s distinctive influence on the earth, or should the uniqueness of human culture be considered. Debates like these are good to be considered but these issues should not necessarily be the determining factor in environmental protection. Environmental protection should not be thought of in regards to issues like deciding what is unique about humans, or deciding what is natural. Ereshefsky argues that human uniqueness is neither necessary nor sufficient for determining what is a candidate for preservation, and that deciding what to preserve does not depend on determining what parts of the world are natural. Instead of focusing on issues like these she suggests that we should focus on what parts of the environment we value and how we can preserve those parts in the best possible way.

Reading for 4/20

What I thought was interesting about these articles is that they all brought up (yet again in anthropology) the problem with definitive answers, versus the problem with not having definitive answers. By that I mean straddling both meta social constructions ideas, as well as having certain (albeit changeable) definitions and meanings. Obviously the articles were all looking at these concerns through bio-diversity and what constitutes nature.

I really enjoyed the Tsing article which talked about the human understanding of biodiversity, through cultures, as a collaborative act. Tsing examines alternative cultural definitions of the natural world in context with Western science, which she shows can be quite similar in various ways. This is also an interesting idea when thinking about the Ereshefsky piece. Ereshefsky shows the complexity of defining what is natural, when only defining it in juxtaposition with humans. In fact he shows that humans and animals have a lot of similarities, but that plants and fauna do not. He explains that humans agency doesn't determined naturalness because it's comparable and definable by things that are determined to be natural. I also really enjoyed that despite the implication that conservation is useless, because everything can be argued to be natural, we should focus on protecting things in a collaborative effort as opposed to placing everything on a scale of naturalness.

Scientific integrity

The battle between the paleontologists Marsh and Cope, made me think about the morality and justice to any given credit behind a discovery or exploration. Who takes the credit for it?

It made me disbelief and questions the names on science after reading how this scientists played with the funding dates of publications, steal specimens and credit of new discoveries, and employed assistance to do the work for them. More over, even the strategy made by cope to get the publication printed first by buying and controlling part of the American Natural journal was also kind of concerning.

I found a report on Wikipedia from 2007 about scientific integrity , which made me question science even more:

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Integrity_in_Policymaking )

"Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" is the title of a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in February, 2004. The report was the culmination of an investigation of the Bush administration's objectivity in science, and ultimately a criticism thereof. (After it was published, the report's existence was fairly well-publicized by the United States' mass media.)

"Suppression and distortion of research findings"

Rice, Powell, Bush, and Rumsfeld

A central thesis of the report, according to the Executive Summary (on page 2 of the text), was that the Bush administration had behaved in ways considered to be consistent with the following three situations.

1. Epidemic altering and concealing of scientific information by senior officials in various federal agencies

2. Active censorship of scientific information that the administration considered threatening to its own philosophies

Restriction of the ability of government-supported scientists to freely communicate scientific ideas related to "sensitive" issues

"An unprecedented pattern of behavior"

In "Part III", the text of the report posits that the aforementioned activities are unprecedented in the history of the United States. The report lists the following persons and organization who had supposedly acted or made statements to support this claim.

This list is sorted first by category, then by the order in which the persons or organizations are mentioned in the report.

3. Organization

REP America

4. Persons

Ruckelshaus, William

Train, Russell

Panofsky, Dr. Wolfgang H. K.

Goldberger, Dr. Marvin

Scarlett, Dr. Margaret

Kennedy, Donald

Bromley, Dr. D. Allan

Branscomb, Professor Lewis M.

Goldman, Dr. Lynn

The report's table of contents

The following is a duplication of the report's table of contents.

5. Executive summary

6. Part I: Suppression and distortion of research findings at federal agencies

Distorting and suppressing climate change research

Censoring information on air quality

Mercury emissions from power plants

Addressing multiple air pollutants

Distorting scientific knowledge on reproductive health issues

Abstinence-only education

HIV/AIDS

Breast cancer

Suppressing analysis on airborne bacteria

Misrepresenting evidence on Iraq's aluminum tubes

Manipulation of science regarding the endangered species act

Missouri River

Manipulating the scientific process on forest management

OMB rulemaking on "peer review"

7. Part II: Undermining the quality and integrity of the appointment process

Industry influence on lead poisoning prevention panel

Political litmus tests on workplace safety panel

Non-scientist in senior advisory role to the President

Underqualified candidates in health advisory roles

The FDA's Reproductive Health Advisory Committee

Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS

Litmus tests for scientific appointees

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Army Science Board

Dismissal of nuclear weapons and arms control panels

National Nuclear Security Administration panel

Arms control panel

8. Part III: An unprecedented pattern of behavior

Disseminating research from federal agencies

Irregularities in appointments to scientific advisory panels

9. Conclusions and recommendations: What's at stake

Restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making

10. Appendices

EPA memo on climate section of the Report on the Environment

USDA "sensitive issue" list