Welcome to our course site! I’ll introduce myself again for anyone who missed it — my name is Andréa, I use she/her pronouns and I’m so excited to be with you this semester.
This course will be a model for what is possible when care and love for students is centered instead of the directives from a non-living (usually harmful) academic entity. This Writing for Engineering course will explore topics within the field of engineering that center Black, Disabled, and queer voices. We will challenge the concept of neutrality in science, read from a graphic textbook, and practice writing through blog responses. If you’re enrolled, you get an A. Grades are surveillance systems set up to police students with no proof of positively impacting learning outcomes (article attached if you want to challenge other professors’ policies).
We are listed as an online course, so we will be meeting asynchronously for the rest of the semester. This means that each week I will post a module, and the hope is that you’re able to engage with the module (comment, send me a message, read the section I offer) within a week’s time.
On the homepage of the course site, I try to explain how this course will run, so poke around and most questions about what will be asked of you this semester, should be revealed. If you have other questions, please send me a Slack DM, I respond there the fastest.
A little more about me: I’m Autistic, a professor and a PhD student at the Graduate Center, have two little little kids, and work a full time job in tech as a UX Researcher for Sony Music Entertainment. I’m an abolitionist and I’m very excited to see how you all rebuild this world into something beautiful.
For this first week, tell me about yourself. Who are you? How did you end up at CCNY? Do you need me to help you start an uprising in any of your other classes? It can even be a 30 second video if you want, I’d love to see you face. You can send this to me as a DM on Slack.
Lastly, please read these first three sections (links: one, two, three) of Science Under the Scope. It’s a graphic text, so it should take about 15 mins to read. And answer this question in the comments section of this post: when were you taught that science was objective? and after reading these first sections, what do you think?
Last winter break, when I learned about economics, the professor said that science is actually the study. So the thing we study is pretty much objective. After reading the sections, bias is part of human nature is something we can’t deny.
The time I learned science was objective would probably be when I was very young. Science was always just fact based as all theories or knowledge can be backed by data and research that has been tested through a process such as the Scientific Method. From what I read in the sections, we are reminded that even though we try to avoid any biases they still slip in as we are human.
I was never taught that science was objective until i was learning physics in high school.
Our teacher gave a brief explanation about science being objective, short but i understood it. After reading the first sections, I understand it a bit more, science is more of a “neutral” subject, and can be broken down into 5 aspects. Personally I like science’s objectives, but it can also be used for good as well for bad.
Reading the three links provided it did give me a sense to when I was little begin taught on objectivity in science which was around elementary school, doing simple task or given examples to what objective means in science to have no subjective feeling into your research and be based on knowledge. During the reading of each section, this gives you a board scope that in the real world its not really objectivity, where society can play a role with science and the other way around. As an example of certain foods that have certain dyes in it can be acceptable to eat in America and approved by the FDA is different compared to other countries where its banned because of how harmful it is. This example can give insight of the society we live in and how it can be influenced by that. Overall, these readings were informative to how science and society impact on each other and science is not always straight forward.
I was first taught that science was objective in fifth grade science class. I recall the teacher saying that Science is about facts and that we shouldn’t let our prior knowledge or bias influence our observations and data. That always stuck with me because it made a lot of sense, I would think to myself that there are just some things that are the way they are because they are supposed to be like that and that shouldn’t change. However, now after reading these first sections I see that just because we are living things and have a thought process and opinions that we will always have some type of bias. Even if we don’t want to or understand that science is objective, there will always be that small piece of us that may want to feel otherwise.
I think the objectivity of science has been pretty engrained in me since forever. For me they go hand in hand. It is still hard for me to wrap my head around what it means for it not to be objective. I do understand that everybody is different and we all perceive reality through our own filters. I’m excited to look more into this new perspective.
One time when I was taught that science was objective was when you have to do multiple trials during a lab. The multiple trials help reduce human errors and human biases. The multiple trials would add objectivity during these science labs/experiments. After reading the first three sections, I understand the author’s point about how vital objectivity is in science and how often it is used in science. However, I am still unsure about how objectivity can be dangerous in science.
I was taught that science was objective as early as 4th grade in elementary school through states of matter and performing simple experiments through science fair projects. And after reading these sections it really gave me a different perspective that I wouldn’t have perceived beforehand, that science as a whole can’t be fully subjective in order to hold a sound conclusion. It’s impossible for us as people to detach our sense of identity and strictly use observation and the data behind it. It is more of an amalgamation of both and if this is not recognized and can result in ignoring key parts of science. For example, this made me think of the scientists themselves and their roles or demographic; being underrepresented by their race, or gender can greatly harm the environment science has in the future.
1. My name is Yasin Sharif I am a undergraduate student pursuing Computer Science. I end up at CCNY by looking their master program for Cybersecurity. The only thing I need help with how to code with python and making cool games out of it where everyone can play.
2. I think that how sicence can affect the world in so many different ways.
I was first taught that science was objective in my middle school science class, when we learned about the scientific method. This method included six crucial steps: observation, questioning, a research topic, a hypothesis, testing, analyzing the data, and drawing a conclusion. With these steps, I realized that assumptions can distort the reality of one’s observations, prompting me to learn that science is objective. After reading these first sections, the one that stood out to me the most was the third section, which refers to the downsides of objectivity. This downside occurs when we think that just because science is supposed to be right, that doesn’t always mean that’s the case. A lot of times, people see science as one-sided, when in reality, it has several parts and components that often go unnoticed. And with these conclusions we draw from our ignorance, ignoring science can have dangerous consequences.
I’ve always been taught that science was objective and representing of fact with no opinions and bias, after all researchers follow rules that removes bias. But after reading these sections, I now see that there are two types of sciences, Objective and Subjective science. Although scientist tries to remove subjectivity from their research, it not always possible. We are all humans and we all have our own bias that we can’t get rid of.
I don’t exactly remember when I was first taught science was objective, but if I were to recall an early moment where I used objectivity in science was in 8th grade where I took biology. In this class, we had to look at things from a neutral perspective and experiment without using our biases. After reading these sections of of Science Under the Scope, I learned what that science can be objective and that should be the goal. Objective means separating your emotions and biases from your research and experiments.
I learned science was objective in middle school. We were taught at a young age to know science has no bias and scientist shouldn’t be testing for just the results they want. They should design their experiment to be more objective.
Hi, my name is Emily Joseph. I always wanted to go to CCNY because of the Grove School of Engineering, and most of my cousins went there.
Science being an objective subject was taught to me back in 6th grade where my teacher embedded it into me that of all subjects that science is one of the least induced by bias as there are many ways it can be tested and checked. I agreed with her at the time, but after reading the articles I have come to question the objectivity of science as a subject. Even when people try not to be biased and to separate themselves from their work there will always be some bias inherent in people and what is chosen to be research and who benefits are also large components of bias in science.
Science is the interpretation of an objective reality which I consider the universe. Science time and time again may be incorrect as it attempts to make sense of the extremely complicated universe we live in. Science is not objective since it is our interpretation of the world which may be incorrect. however, there are some truths that science discovered that everyone can agree upon regardless of perspective. Those laws of the universe can be tested true everyday and that is objective. 1+1 is more than 1 regardless of what numerical system or symbol you use 2 objects will add up to more than 1 object. The issue arises when people will mislabel fact, theory or a law. If something can be tested true regardless of bias it is objective.
I was taught that science was objective back in 11th grade, my science teacher was talking in class about what the expectations were for doing analysis in her class, in a few words she said she wanted to see nothing but explanations based on the background research and data as the phrases “in my opinion” or “I think” doesn’t exist in science and when whenever those words are written in a scientific paper then the research becomes unreliable. After reading these first sections I think there is some truth about science not being totally objective but I don’t have a complete response as to whether or not it is true. However, it reminds me of my physics professor back in high school who told me that in every scientific report there is a bit of the scientist left and if looked carefully you will find it. I forgot about it because I see science as numbers and statistics, and the numbers never lie I was told.
Hi, My name is Kareena Ram and I ended up at CCNY because I wanted to attend the Grove School of Engineering. I can’t exactly recall when I learned that science was objective, probably in high school in one of my science classes but I have always known that it was and that the “truth” should be neutral lacking any personal opinions and biases. After reading the first three sections of the series, “Under the Scope”, I understand that the “truth” of science is not always neutral as scientists/individuals can lack the ability of separating their perspectives, experiences, and themselves from the results for their experiments. By doing this, these individuals draw unreliable conclusions and ignore parts of their results.