Science Knows Best?

Donna Haraway questions the production of knowledge in Primate Visions, and its relationship with science by stating, “Scientific practice may be considered a kind of story-telling practice – a rule governed, constrained, historically changing craft of narrating the history of nature” (4). This type of story telling is done through use of language and metaphors, which are rooted in “historically specific practices of interpretation and testimony” (4). A scientist may discover a fact, but uses the presentation of that fact, the description, and the narrative, which are largely dictated by history, culture, and location, to fill in the gaps. If this is the case, then why is science still regarded as the absolute truest form of knowledge? What happens when science and people cannot find the answer? Who or what do we depend upon? I turn to Temple Grandin for further analysis. Grandin is an Autistic person that is involved in advocacy, animal welfare, and science. She relates her experience with Autism to the experiences of animals, and claims that she has a heightened awareness of their sensory experiences because she reacts to an environment similarly to them. In “A Cow’s Eye View,” she states, “I have to follow the cattle’s rules of behavior. I also have to imagine what experiencing the world through the cow’s sensory system is like” (168). Her simulation of the cow’s experience is labeled as “the ultimate virtual reality system,” which I think aligns with Haraway’s critique of science. I am not arguing that Grandin’s experience or perception is invalid, but I am saying that the language used to present her findings makes it seem that it is completely factual; however, much like Haraway states, the information has some grey areas that are then dependent on metaphors to continue to be regarded as facts. Although Grandin does present useful information, her place as the human observer becomes authoritative in her writing, which is what I find in science as well. I think it would be useful for science and society if the information found in experiments was not always presented as an absolute truth, unless it truly is. Which brings me to a seemingly never-ending list of questions. How do we know if something is an absolute truth? Does something cease to be true because it was never true in the first place, or because time and place have changed? Who is considered an authority figure, is it a scientific expert, or someone like Grandin who is educated but also has a unique experience with the world that is rooted in sensation and feeling? Does science hierarchalize thought over feeling? If so, does this mean that scientific practices become biased due to gendered assumptions? I realize there is not a specific answer to most of these questions, so I leave with this, is there anything in your life you know to be true? If so, how do you know?