text:
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay First-time Visitors: Please visit Site Map and Disclaimer. Use "Back" to return here.
One of the most widely-cited modern comments on science is this one by Andrew Pickering:
On the view advocated in this chapter, there is no obligation upon anyone framing a view of the world to take account of what twentieth-century science has to say.
The quote is so widely cited because, first of all, if it didn't exist, scientists would be accused of constructing a straw man by stating that philosophers of science held any such views. Second, it neatly encapsulates a widespread view of science held by many philosophers.
My response to Pickering is short and blunt. He pretty much mirrors my view of twentieth-century philosophy, so I am neither surprised, offended, or impressed. In a century that produced Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Slobo Milosevic, we still see philosophers and sociologists seeking the roots of evil in externals like family violence, poverty, television, even circumcision and lack of breast-feeding (and no, I am not making those up!). Calling twentieth-century philosophy superficial gives it too much dignity; vacuous is the closest term.
This is a bit unfair to Pickering, who is actually paraphrasing a viewpoint that is not really stated so explicitly by its proponents. Pickering's own observations on the history of particle physics are, as far as I have seen, pretty moderate.
After a heated exchange with a sociologist of science, I looked a bit deeper into the "science wars." Post-modernist philosophers and sociologists of science do have some legitimate complaints. First of all, a large part of their work is, in the words of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, "mostly harmless." There's nothing at all threatening to the legitimacy of science about attempting to unravel how personal interactions, group beliefs and prejudices, cultural biases, and unspoken assumptions have affected the process of scientific discovery; if anything, it makes the history of science a lot more interesting.
Also, and more seriously, they have a legitimate grievance about quotations being taken out of context, sometimes inaccurately, and quoted at second and third hand. For example, one of the most widely quoted remarks was an extemporaneous remark made in 1966 by Jacques Derrida who appears, on the face of things, to be denying the absoluteness of the speed of light. What Derrida actually said was:
The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability--it is, finally, the concept of the game [jeu - probably better translated as "play"]. In other words, it is not the concept of something--of a center starting from which an observer could master the field--but the very concept of the game which, after all, I was trying to elaborate.
More accurate and contextual quotations suggest that he was mostly speaking metaphorically. He seems to be saying that "the Einsteinian constant" (speed of light) is not a static physical frame of reference but a very different, dynamic frame of reference. Also, inaccuracies in several other quotations have been uncritically repeated by later writers. It's significant that a single paragraph out of forty years' work has generated so much notoriety. On the other hand, intellectually slovenly metaphysical extrapolations from modern physics clutter the intellectual landscape liked junked cars, so Derrida is being at the very least irresponsible.
So in an effort to clarify what bothers scientists about this field, here are excerpts and commentaries on a few recent articles. Brevity and copyright restrictions preclude my quoting the articles in their entirety. Readers are encouraged to consult the original articles to determine whether I have fairly quoted the authors (all the quotes come directly from full-text databases).
This article, from Common Knowledge 8.1 (2002), pages 71-79, is in the form of a dialog between a sociologist (He) and an (astro)physicist (She).
She: So you're a sociologist and you do research on scientists? Well, then you can explain something to me. People in my lab are forever talking about the "Science Wars." What's all the fuss about?
He: If only I knew! I'd know what front to fight on, what equipment to carry, and what camouflage to wear. As things are, people are firing in all directions. It isn't easy to know what's going on.
She: I've heard that the main thing is to avoid relativism. But I'm a physicist, and that presents a real difficulty. Without relativity there'd be no possibility of making measurements and we'd each be prisoners, to all eternity, in some single point of view. In my discipline, we need the relativity of frames of reference in order even to begin work. I have a special need for relativity because I work on events close to the Big Bang. You don't need relativity, too?
I reproduced the first three paragraphs verbatim to preclude any debate about quoting out of context. Anybody who would put words like this into the mouth of a scientist has no business complaining that scientists are uninformed! First of all, note the conflation between relativism and relativity. Science had no difficulty determining the size of the Earth and the distances to the planets and stars before relativity, so saying there would be no possibility of making measurements without relativity is simple gibberish. It's almost as if the author equates relativity with the ability to move from place to place.
He: ...in the humanities and in ethics, [relativism] is an insult, implying: "you think that all points of view are valid, that all cultures are equal, that truth and error are on the same plane, that Rembrandt and graffiti have the same value, and that we can't distinguish between creationists and evolutionists because everything's valid and anything goes." .... The difference between departments of geology or geoscience and the curio cabinets of the creationists (I've visited some in San Diego--the "creationist research centers"!) is so huge that I don't see the point of adding an even more absolute distinction between true and false.
On the other hand, if the gulf is really that wide and clearly defined, is there any harm in saying the distinction is absolute? What serious intellectual purpose is served here by denying the existence of an absolute framework? Admittedly there are profound problems in defining how we know a framework is absolute, but the fact that a problem is difficult doesn't justify avoiding the problem or asserting there is no solution.
The fundamental problem posed by Latour in this paragraph is this: which of the two alternatives is more valid? Without a defining direction for truth and falsity, what reason does Latour have for dismissing the creationist research as less valid? He can see there's a wide difference, but so what?
On the one hand, there are those who, for the last two centuries, have constructed the history of a world several billion years old, and on the other, there are those obsessed by the Bible and at war with abortion. There's no connection between the two. They live in incommensurable worlds.
There's enough here for a whole book. First of all, note the ideological slant: "obsessed by the Bible," and the wholly gratuitous injection of the abortion issue. Latour has obviously never studied the arguments and literature of creationism (I have). There could actually be no more perfect example of deconstruction and construction than the creationist attempt to redefine geology and biology in terms compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis . In fact, I would argue that the activities of creationists are such perfect examples that they raise grave doubts about the entire intellectual validity of "deconstruction" and "construction." And Biblical fundamentalists do not regard themselves as "obsessed" with the Bible. They regard the Bible as an accurate and scientifically legitimate record of events on a par with the Bayeux Tapestry's depiction of the Battle of Hastings and Halley's Comet. They regard their critics as "obsessed" by the Bible since they are unwilling to treat it as even potentially admissible evidence.
But let's deal with "construction." It bears an obvious similarity to the description of science as "myth." Both terms, users hasten to assert, are not meant to connote artificiality or unreality. But in that case, why use such semantically loaded words when equally neutral terms are readily available? Why not use "interpretation" in place of "myth," or "generation" instead of "construction?" At the very least the use of semantically loaded terminology is sloppy, at worst it's intellectually dishonest.
And exactly what purpose is served by creating a category that lumps both the Periodic Table on the one hand, and Persephone and the seasons together on the other, under the single concept of "myth," or the development of the geologic time scale and creation of schools of literary criticism under the single rubric "construction?" Nobody, to my knowledge, ever attempted to test whether the seasons were linked to Persephone returning from the underworld, or ever built a technology around the idea. The two types of "myth" are different in kind . So what value is there in lumping them into a single category? It's like lumping Notre Dame cathedral and a tin shed together because they're both "constructions." It's true, but trivial.
True story: I once had a discussion with a philosopher of science who said he had no trouble at all imagining science junking the Periodic Table and adopting some radically different conception. So I asked him if he thought it possible that, had Germany won World War II, Mein Kampf might now be considered the definitive analysis of history with Marx relegated to the realm of crackpot literature. Oh no, he answered, that was inconceivable (this was before the end of the Soviet Union). But surely if any kind of idea is a "construction" it would be theories of history. On the other hand, asserting that it was in principle possible for science to junk the Periodic Table and go to something totally different, amounts to building a massive philosophical edifice on something whose existence is entirely unproven . Despite the glib talk (more in popular discourse than formal literature) about "alternative realities," nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of another reality . (If you're about to say "wave-particle duality," or "1+1 = 2 in decimal notation but 10 in binary," you're too illiterate to be reading this page.)
She: So if I understand you correctly, you reject the accusation of relativism but claim there's no need for an absolute distinction between true and false in order to distinguish between this case and that. [but is there any positive value in denying an absolute distinction? - see above] In my field, if you reject absolute frames of reference, you're a relativist. But for us, that's a positive designation, and relativity's the only means of achieving commensurability.
This is such a garbled description of relativity I hardly know where to begin. Even before Einstein, there never was any "absolute framework" since we couldn't tell whether the entire universe itself might not be moving. Accepting relativity in science isn't "a positive designation," it's minimal literacy. What that final sentence means is open for conjecture since it has no discernible scientific meaning. And even with relativity we cannot be sure there is no absolute framework. We just haven't found one, nor does any theory require one, which is not at all the same thing as proving the nonexistence of such a framework. Nevertheless, the cosmic background radiation suggests that we are nearly stationary with respect to the large-scale universe as far out as we can see.
Actually, what Einstein showed was that the speed of light was invariant, not time or space. In relativity, there is an absolute reference, the speed of light.
He: Very well, if you wish: I'm a relativist in the sense that I, like you, reject an absolute point of reference. I agree that this rejection permits me to establish relations and distinctions, and to measure the gaps between points of view. For me, being a relativist means being able to establish relations between frames of reference, and so, being able to pass from one framework to another in converting measurements (or, at least, explanations and descriptions). It's a positive term, I agree, to the extent that the opposite of relativist is absolutist.
I know a fair number of Biblical fundamentalists who are absolutists in any sense of the word, and they have no difficulty whatsoever "measuring the gaps between points of view." The more literate among them can even "pass from one framework to another" with some facility. They just don't believe that those other frameworks have any validity. So claiming you have to be a relativist to work with or evaluate other frameworks is flatly fallacious.
Incidentally, the sociological comments I've seen on creationism and fundamentalism have been simplistic and uninformed in the extreme. Most of the sociologists that have commented on creationism seem to have been so blinded by their own hostility to fundamentalism for its stance on issues like abortion or homosexuality that they fail utterly to "establish relations between frames of reference, and pass from one framework to another."
Ultimately though, what in the world is Latour talking about? How does rejecting an absolute framework allow him to "to establish relations and distinctions, and to measure the gaps between points of view" any better or any differently than having an absolute framework would? Given two maps, one with and one without grid coordinates, I would have no problem measuring the distance between points just as accurately on either map. Long before we designated Greenwich as zero longitude, we had no problem determining whether one point was east or west of the other. On the other hand, the grid coordinates would certainly help me measure my location relative to distant places much better, and an absolute framework in philosophy certainly helps measure the distance between ideas and truth or falsity much better than no framework. At bottom this paragraph is just gibberish.
He: You see, this is what the Science Wars amount to: two intelligent academics posing stupid questions to each other. First of all, "social construction" doesn't mean a thing. And second, I'm not the one who uses the term--some of my colleagues do. [Is this an admission that his field includes people who employ meaningless terminology? If so, why doesn't he address the issue straight on and admit that some sociologists of science are at the root of the problem, that the "Science Wars" are not entirely one-sided?] At any rate, it's not the term that's the problem, it's your perversity and your scandalous double standards. ... Look, when you use a radio telescope, when you do simulations on your computers, when you print your maps in "false colors," when you calculate the redshift, when you apply the theories of particle physicists--do these instruments, theories, methodologies play a role or not in the conclusions you reach? ... Picture, if you would, a ledger, consisting of a credit column and a debit column. If I understand you correctly, you'd place your instruments, radio telescopes, budgets, theories, etc., in the credit column.
She: Of course, because they allow me to have my say about quasars.
He: Then what would you place in the debit column?
She: I don't know. Whatever prevents me from talking about quasars: poor instruments, confused data, disputes among theoreticians--above all, an inadequate budget.
He: .... I'm listening with great satisfaction as you entangle yourself in contradictions. ... What's wrong, my dear physicist, is that you change your accounts ledger depending on your audience--whether it's me or the general public. You always have two columns, one for credit and one for debit. But on the credit side, you now place the quasars, as if they're beyond discussion, and on the debit side you place your instruments, your budgets, theories, papers, colleagues--and you whine: "If only I didn't have all these machines and impediments, I could at last talk plainly and without obfuscation about my quasars."
If you have any doubts about the fairness of the quotations here, please consult the original article. The logic here is so tortured it defies belief. The physicist claims that her data and the facilities that aid her in acquiring them are assets, and insufficient funds, instrumental limitations, and poor data are impediments or debits. The sociologist puts the data (the quasars) on the asset side of the ledger and all the human factors on the debit side. But that is not what the physicist said! She very clearly put her instruments on the asset side as well, and most certainly she would place a healthy budget and many of her colleagues there as well. And Latour is perfectly well aware of it because he has the physicist respond:
She(coldly): I said ex-act-ly the opposite. I said that without radio telescopes we couldn't speak about quasars.
He: Why, then, did you pretend, in making fun of me, that there's a choice to be made between politics and reality? Either you play politics and arbitrarily decide, abracadabra, by consensus at a meeting of your lab colleagues, on the existence of the four quasars of the constellation of Betelgeuse or else the quasars determine what you say about them in print. You were the one who imposed this awkward choice on me, this choice of "language game" versus "reality." There are indeed two columns here: a debit column and a credit column; a column of language games, social construction, and discourse, a column of reality, truth, and exactitude. You have two languages, and your tongue is as forked as a viper's. When it suits you, when you're asking for money, you say, "The instruments permit quasars to speak." And on the other hand, when it suits you, you say, "We must choose between social constructions and reality." Personally, I think that's the epitome of fraud....
No, the epitome of fraud is this paragraph. On the one hand Latour says "There are indeed two columns here: a debit column and a credit column; a column of language games, social construction, and discourse, a column of reality, truth, and exactitude." There could not be a more explicit opposition of social construction and reality. But he then criticizes the physicist for saying "We must choose between social constructions and reality" -- after he himself put the two in opposing columns!
The real problem here is the creation of a simplistic false dichotomy, not by scientists critical of post-modernist thought, but by the post-modernists themselves. According to the paragraph above, we have data and external reality, and we have what people say about them. But that's an utterly meaningless dichotomy. It's as pointless as arranging books on a shelf by color instead of content. On the one hand, there is bad data masquerading as good, so not all data is an asset. On the other hand there are social constructs that lead toward improved understanding of reality and those that don't, so some are assets and others are debits. Studying social constructs in general makes as much sense as researching books with green covers.
[A fairly lengthy discussion follows leading to Alan Sokal's infamous hoax. Sokal submitted a paper consisting entirely of gibberish to a leading journal on philosophy of science and got it published!]
He: Of course we represent a danger. We're the Sokalists' political adversaries.
She: So you admit, after all, that you want to politicize the sciences.
He: No, I attest I want to depoliticize the sciences so that they can't be used in this unsavory way as a tool for silencing political discussion.
Okay, who are the "Sokalists?" How exactly are they attempting to silence political discussion? What's their agenda? Scientific journals are rife with political discussion as scientists debate falsification of evidence, curbs on DNA research, research ethics, implications of 9-11 security measures, depletion of energy resources, intellectual property rights, and so on. So exactly what political discussion are the Sokalists trying to silence?
I've never met a scientist who has a problem with studying the history of science, which certainly includes the social interactions within it. The account of how Darwin came to be aboard the Beagle is fascinating. And nobody familiar with the story of how long it took to get from "a quantity of motion" to velocity, momentum, energy and acceleration can object to studying the role of language in clarifying or obscuring scientific thought. As I stated above, the vast majority of what post-modernists do poses no threat to science (though I reserve the right to debate its long-term contribution).
But lumping critics of post-modernism together as "Sokalists" and injecting the specter of "silencing political discussion" suggests that there is a hidden agenda here. Science, and rationalism in general, have been attacked on a number of fronts as means of supporting the hegemony of white male Europeans or justifying colonialism, war, economic exploitation, sexism, environmental injustice. The problem is there just doesn't seem to be any viable methodological alternative to science and rationalism. So the only alternative seems to be an ideological one: create a "feminist" or "Afrocentric" or "green" science and assert its validity by fiat, using the claim that traditional science is rooted in imperialistic language and thinking, and asserting the right (again by fiat) to reject traditional findings or accept unsubstantiated methods and data if they serve certain ideological ends.
Latour would never be that crass. But there's a fine line here between teasing out the real unspoken biases in terminology and practice (for example the naive assumption that IQ tests accurately measure intelligence, "validated" by the fact that white males outscored everyone else) and using language as a pretext for simply creating a parallel universe of your own. And if responsible post-modernists wouldn't do that, plenty of other people are doing it, and the responsible post-modernists are either unaware of it (which is ignorance) or silent while it happens (which is complicity).
I can't help recalling the gratuitous insertion of abortion near the start of the article and the remark about creationists being "obsessed" with the Bible. Is it possible that some post-modernists see criticism of their work as somehow tied to right-wing politics, or equate the existence of an absolute framework of reality with moral absolutism?
He: I'm using an image to show you the extent of their incomprehension. They haven't even begun to pose the question that we're trying to resolve in the history, sociology, and anthropology of science: how human beings can speak truly about events, about the irruption of new objects into the world.
This statement goes beyond the realm of merely mistaken concepts of science into the domain of deliberate libel. If you believe this, no scientific critic of post-modernism has ever wondered about these things.
Also note the conflation of "speaking truly" and the "irruption of new objects." The two are simply not the same thing. Flying saucers and Immanuel Velikovsky "irrupted" into the world around 1950. Neither constituted speaking truly about events.
He: For the science warriors, there simply isn't a problem. They think that I'm playing the fiend, that I'm avoiding difficulties. Whereas I'm actually studying what they're scrupulously avoiding with their fraudulent accounts--and that is: how human beings imbue and fill the world with language.
"How human beings imbue and fill the world with language" is a long way removed from "speaking truly." Now a study of language and its uses would certainly include a study of the abuses as well, but a study of the uses of language that failed to take account of use and abuse strikes me as having no imaginable value.
He: How do you yourself, my dear, set about to speak the truth about quasars, which are scarcely a billion years younger than the Big Bang itself? But instead of listening, understanding, and reconstructing the difficulty involved, the science warriors deny the difficulty altogether. They arrive in the middle of the discussion in their clumsy clogs and shout, "The question shall not be posed! Over here we have the quasars of Betelgeuse and over there is Mme. X, the physicist. Those who wish to complicate this matter are dangerous relativists." For my part, I say, "Let us do our work. You go do your dirty business elsewhere. If you don't understand the problem we're posing, don't disturb those of us who do."
My question is not "do scientists understand the problem sociologists are posing" but "do sociologists understand the problem sociologists are posing?" Not the local problems they seek to answer in their individual research, but the broader problems they create.
1. If, as sociologists and philosophers of science claim to believe, it is possible to "speak truly," then that belief needs to be implicit in everything they do and write, and central to all their research. Nobody could read a scientific journal and come away with the impression that scientists doubt the objective reality of nature. The same needs to be true of everything that sociologists and philosophers of science write. People are quite capable of devising reasons to make literature say what they want it to say. Writing in a way that ignores, or worse yet, abets this process is not responsible scholarship.
2. For people who claim to be fascinated with the use of language, sociologists and philosophers of science employ sloppy, semantically loaded language. If they do not mean to support relativism, then of all people it is absolutely inexcusable that their literature and discourse should create that impression. I could forgive an ordinary person for using inaccurate terminology, not someone who claims to make the study of language and its uses the entire focus of his work.
3. For my entire professional career I have heard it said that scientists should accept responsibility for their work. I am not about to cut sociologists and philosophers of science any slack. Where is their equivalent of Skeptical Enquirer, a periodical for general readers wherein sociologists and philosophers of science deconstruct popular relativism? For that matter, where are the articles by sociologists and philosophers of science in Skeptical Enquirer itself? Are these people such ivory tower elitists that they don't consider themselves as having any responsibility for popular misapplications of their ideas?
From A Discussion with Jacques Derrida, Theory and Event 5:1
"a culture is a colonisation, there is always someone else having more power than the other, who imposes his language, his force, his name and so on and so forth."
Jacques Derrida is a leading post-modernist philosopher and, if anyone is an expert in how language shapes ideas, it is he. So seeing him broaden the term "colonisation" to include every power differential casts serious doubt on the intellectual value of the whole enterprise.
I try to show or to affirm that a pure act of forgiveness should be totally dissociated from any horizon of reconciliation, salvation, or the economy of 'healing away' as they say in South Africa. We are reconciled or we forgive or declare amnesty and so on and so forth, we establish a commission of truth and reconciliation in view of 'healing away' or curing the traumatism, which is a good thing, but I wouldn't call this forgiveness. Of course we have to do whatever we can to reconcile, to heal away, to make the society work and so on and so forth, if it is possible, but we shouldn't call this forgiveness. A pure act of forgiveness should be totally free from any perspective or attempt or research of reconciliation or salvation, from any such form of benefit. It should be absolutely gratuitous, gracious.
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less." Some philosophers indeed argue that actions are devoid of merit unless there is no hint of self-advantage in them. If we extend this logic to its conclusion, you really can't claim to have forgiven someone unless you are simultaneously seething with violent hatred toward that person, because any lessening of hatred benefits the one who forgives and therefore lessens the value of the forgiveness.
If this is how one of the leading thinkers in the field uses language, are scientists really to blame for not taking post-modernism seriously?
I have to concur with the critic who, responding to post-modernist criticisms that Derrida's words were taken out of context, replied "Derrida in context is worse than Derrida out of context."
One of Derrida's defenders is Arkady Plotnitsky, who wrote the following in "But It Is Above All Not True": Derrida, Relativity, and the "Science Wars" (Postmodern Culture , Volume 7, Number 2, January 1997)
The accuracy of quotations from Derrida and others by their critics in the scientific community, such as Sokal or Gross and Levitt, has been stressed by many scientists involved in the debates at issue, and they are right to do so. As we have seen, not all of these quotations proved to be as accurate as these scientists believed. [true] However, even assuming that such quotations are accurate, their literal accuracy is meaningless if the reader is not provided with the meanings of the terms involved (such as "play/game" or "the Einsteinian constant"), is deprived of the possibility of establishing them from the quotation itself, or is free to construe them on the basis of other sources--say, one's general knowledge of physics, as opposed to the meaning given to these terms by Derrida's essay or by Hyppolite's question.
Horrors! Physicists interpret terms like "Einsteinian constant" based on their actual meanings in physics rather than how some non-physicist chooses to redefine the terms. This is about as close to "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more, nor less" as one could ask for.
Let me suggest an alternative: that responsible scholarship, especially by people who claim to be experts in deconstructing texts, requires the scholar to find out what a term means and use the term correctly. If there's no suitable English term, find one from another language or coin one. If you do have a good reason to use an existing term in a novel or unconventional sense, define the usage rigorously. But don't throw out a phrase like "the Einsteinian constant is not a constant" and then complain when physicists blast you for it.
Actually, this quote cuts to the central intellectual vacuity of "deconstruction." You can "deconstruct" a Ferrari and use the chassis for a hay wagon and the body panels to build an outhouse, but so what? You can sing O Little Town of Bethlehem to the tune of House of the Rising Sun (try it!) but that doesn't make House of the Rising Sun a Christmas carol. And you can deconstruct relativity into a metaphor for relativism, but that doesn't make relativism scientifically or philosophically valid. And these analogies are dead on; deconstructionists never build something more true or more beautiful from what they've deconstructed.
A few more comments by Plotnisky:
Derrida has commented more extensively and in more grounded ways on mathematics and science, and on the philosophical grounding of both.
The footnote here references a grand total of two works.
He also makes use of mathematical and scientific theories, concepts, metaphors, and so forth (most famously, Gdel's concept of undecidability) in his work.
So what? If he doesn't make use of them in an accurate and informed manner, who cares?
In addition, his work is fundamentally linked to the question of technology via the question of writing, which defines his work throughout.
We can say this of everyone who writes about writing, or even uses a pencil. Why is Derrida's understanding of technology more worthy of serious consideration than that of Edward Constant (below), an actual technologist? The thing that unites Plotnitsky's remarks here are their utter banality and triviality. Derrida writes about writing, and writing is a form of technology, and therefore his work is "linked to the question of technology?" College freshmen write like this; scholars don't.
This is from Missing the Target? A Comment on Edward Constant's "Reliable Knowledge and Unreliable Stuff" by Philip Scranton in Technology and Culture 41.4 (2000) pages 752-764 .
In Technology and Culture 's April 1999 issue, Edward Constant offers an essay broadly critical of the social constructionist approach in the history of technology. ....In reflecting on his presentation, I have fashioned seven objections and comments, the last of which briefly treats its implications for future work in the field.
My analysis will deal with most but not all of Scranton's points. This essay is quite a bit more technical than Latour's dialog and doesn't lend itself as easily to condensation. I believe the quotes provide sufficient context to represent Scranton's thoughts accurately and fairly.
What "spatiotemporally universal knowledge" means is far from evident. Constant opposes it to "spatiotemporally particular" knowledge, which has an indeterminate relation to "local knowledge," but the parallel modifiers make for no little confusion. Are there different spatiotemporal shells or domains for particular and universal knowledge, and how are they differentiated?
There may be shortcomings in Constant's terminology, but the confusion here strikes me as more tendentious than real. "Spatiotemporally universal" obviously means universal in space and time, and therefore not dependent on individual preference or cultural conditioning. To use a simpler term, objective. "Spatiotemporally particular" just as obviously means ideas that are true in particular situations ("it's raining") but not generally.
Jumping here to a footnote of Scranton's, he poses an example.
Consider these domains: nineteenth-century American engineering, nineteenth-century American mechanical engineering, nineteenth-century American locomotive engineering, nineteenth-century Philadelphia locomotive engineering, Philadelphia locomotive engineering from 1840 to 1900, Baldwin Company locomotive engineering from 1865 to 1900, Baldwin Company drawing room practice from 1865 to 1900. Where in this set of successively narrower domains do we shift from encountering spatiotemporally universal knowledge to finding spatiotemporally particular knowledge?
Sounds reasonable, but it's so obviously asking a contrived question that it borders on willful obfuscation. At every level here there is both universal knowledge and particular knowledge. Universal knowledge would be the physical properties of iron, the force of gravity, thermodynamic properties of steam, and so on. Even at the outermost level, nineteenth-century American engineering, there is also particular knowledge (use of English as opposed to metric units, for example)
At progressively more local levels, the knowledge would also become more local. "Follow these procedures when cutting a gear, make this part to such and such a tolerance, use a dotted line to indicate hidden lines on the blueprint, see George about getting drafting supplies," and so on. But some of this knowledge would be rooted in more universal knowledge. "We make gear teeth as involutes of circles because that shape allows smooth gear motion with less wear, and that property in turn is rooted in the geometry of the involute curve." Other knowledge is purely conventional. "We use 1/4-20 threads" because someone rather arbitrarily defined the inch centuries ago and someone else decided 20 threads to the inch on a 1/4 inch bolt would be a convenient thread size. "See George about getting drafting supplies" because he can be trusted to keep the supply room stocked and not tolerate pilferage.
In fact, probably the best definition of Constant's term "spatiotemporally universal" is knowledge that applies (or potentially can apply) at every domain level. Suffice it to say here that we can consider everyday reality to be a special case of relativistic and quantum reality that applies at low velocities and large quantum numbers, just in case you were inclined to raise that objection. Returning to the main paper:
What is the relationship between spatiotemporally universal knowledge and other sorts of universal knowledge? Are there any other forms of universal knowledge--that is, knowledge that transcends historical and spatial contexts instead of generalizing across some set of them?
More or less by definition, no. The extra qualifier "spatiotemporally" is needed because apparently straightforward terms like objective and universal have been so muddled by varied usage that they no longer serve in unadorned form.
Does that sort of universal knowledge, presumably of nature, apply in an immanent fashion before it is discovered, formalized, and disseminated, and if so, how so? Could it be knowledge before being known?
This could very well be one of the central issues between sociologists of science and scientists and bears an obvious relationship to the ancient question about a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear. (Yes, the tree does make a sound. It says "Oh $#!+"). To almost any scientist, the answer to the first question has to be yes. There are innumerable phenomena that acted indistinguishably from their present behavior before the physical processes underlying them were understood. People were killed by cannonballs long before the elements in gunpowder and the chemical reactions involved were known. Troy did not appear in the ground when Heinrich Schliemann decided to dig there.
As to the second question, if we define knowledge as "what people know", the answer is tautologically no. If we define knowledge as information about the universe that can be known, then yes. Here's a wonderfully and terribly bizarre example. Amazingly enough, it was not widely understood in the early 20th century that ammonium nitrate itself was explosive, despite its use as an ingredient in explosives. It was considered an inert material, often stored in piles or storage bins where it would absorb moisture and become hard as a rock. It was often broken up by pickaxes or even - this is not a misprint - blasting. Sooner or later, someone was bound to discover that ammonium nitrate was indeed explosive. It happened at the German town of Oppau in 1921. A solidified storage bin was attacked with pickaxes and then dynamite. As one of the German language sites puts it with sublime understatement, "das war keine gute Idee." The factory and town were leveled and nearly 600 people died. The crater was 100 meters across and 20 meters deep. I think that qualifies as "applying in an immanent fashion."
In this context, let me refer to a recent discussion on the Internet list H-Business, focused on the effort to fashion global accounting procedures and definitions and thus on the history of accounting. In the course of a series of exchanges, it became evident that national histories, legal traditions, divergent forms of business organization, and differing expectations of accountability influenced the creation of disparate, noncongruent systems of accounting. Reaching for a "universal"--that is, global--model demands displacing national and, in some cases, cross-national, systems that have reached high levels of sophistication. Becoming universal here is a goal, fraught with political and economic implications, yet nations (and groups of nations following similar procedures) are certainly "translocal," absent a firmer definition of "local."
To push further, we need to appreciate how accounting practice is different from (or analogous to) technological practice....
This is actually an excellent example. Accounting is "constructed" in the sense that many of the conventions in use could be equally well replaced by a different choice of conventions. But underlying the conventions are more universal facts and principles. Any accounting system exists to provide its users with an accurate picture of the financial state of an institution. There are inputs and outputs. At the most basic level are the laws of thermodynamics (you can't create goods out of nothing) and the laws of mathematics. I suspect at a fairly trivial level, accountants wouldn't have too much trouble identifying universal unifying concepts. It's at the application level that things get sticky. And why would we expect otherwise? A system that works at a company whose efforts mostly deal with making inanimate objects wouldn't necessarily work at one that provides services.
Perhaps, given this article, Constant might argue for technological practice's rootedness in nature,... But this stance forces us toward a tough decision: drawing a line, somewhere, between the human and the natural.
Here again we have this false dichotomy: that belief in objectivity implies a dichotomy of human versus natural. Linguistics is human, but very much rooted in objectivity. It is objectively, historically true that French evolved from Latin, that English and German evolved from a common ancestor and that all evolved from Proto-Indo-European. History is also human, but rooted in objectivity. It is objectively true that Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. It is objectively false that the myths collected by Immanuel Velikovsky are records of an early historical planetary catastrophe. The dichotomy is not between nature and human. Actually, it's not a dichotomy at all but a spectrum of spectra. It is first of all the spectrum from the ideas that can in some sense be confirmed by independent observers to those that hold only in the mind of the individual. Second, it is the spectrum from ideas that have been confirmed, through those that are indeterminate, to those that have been disconfirmed.
Structures may be more or less durable in planetary space; flows may accord more or less with our formulae. If spatiotemporally universal knowledge directly applies in space, then the claim for spatiotemporal universality does reach to plant its flag on the entire universe, and the modifier becomes weightless.
This isn't the first time I've encountered a sociologist or philosopher of science who expressed doubts about whether terrestrial laws of science apply in space, and it bothers me. It points to a level of scientific literacy so low it beggars description. At least Alan Sokal knew enough about post-modernism to fashion a hoax that fooled reviewers.
First, it's trivial. Of course physical conditions are going to be different in space. "Wings generate lift" doesn't work in space. Constructs too flimsy to support their own weight on earth function nicely in space, and so on.
Third, the very non-trivial question of whether the laws of nature apply on the largest scales of space and time has been researched in great depth by astrophysicists using a wide variety of observational tests. Scranton's comment suggests he's completely unaware of this work.
Throughout his exposition, Constant takes pains to show that reliable knowledge of technologies exists and is shared widely and utilized constantly. One can hardly object to this claim, but from the enthnomethodological perspectives he notes as related to social constructivism (but does not cite specifically) reliable knowledge is a condition of all human activity, a ground for language coherence, gestural understanding, and behavioral sequencing, within which knowledge about technologies can surely take its reliable place.
This is a comparison of apples and oranges. English and Japanese are reliable modes of communication with quite different ways of classifying words, and neither system is necessarily better than the other. But underlying the workability of English and Japanese are certain more universal requirements. They have to be capable of expressing a wide range of concepts with precision and without ambiguity (that's why dictionaries are even possible). They are objectively superior to languages with limited vocabulary for communication or ambiguous words and grammatical constructions. Even in the environment where the limited language developed, English and Japanese will probably be superior, capable of expressing ideas about the local environment not expressible in the local language. (Prove the Pythagorean Theorem in Ebonics) Most languages implicitly recognize that other languages express some things in an objectively better way; that's why languages borrow words.
The functionality of languages is rooted in underlying concepts of information theory and there is broad latitude for variation in practice. You can't go from the basics of information theory to conclude that "I saw" is more correct than "I seen." As long as the conventions are observed and preserved, the language will be a reliable mode of communication. But the conventions themselves can be quite arbitrary. Who decided that the sound "dog" was a logical sound to associate with the animal?
Technology of course has its own conventions (line styles on blueprints; tying the meter to the dimensions of the earth is every bit as parochial as defining the yard in terms of the length of a king's arm span) but what makes the technology work is a dense layer of physical laws that do not depend on personal preference or cultural conditioning. You can express them in different terms, but once you know, say, the Japanese words for English concepts, or how to convert BTU's to joules, you can show that the different systems of expression are rooted in a common substrate. You can't go from the basics of information theory to conclude that "I saw" is more correct than "I seen." You can go from the Second Law of Thermodynamics to conclude that a machine that purports to extract energy from ambient room air, without exchanging heat elsewhere, will not work.
If this is not the case, then what is the warrant for arguing that technology-based reliable knowledge is distinctive? [See the preceding paragraph] What would constitute the significant differential in effectiveness and reliability of the knowledge we each use in communication, strategizing, and so on, in conversations, shopping, meetings, from what engineering scientists employ to sort signal from noise? Whence would come the metric that would gauge comparative reliability? Moreover, both shoppers and engineers misspecify situations and adjust practice, recursively, on the basis of outcomes.
This isn't so much a matter of comparing apples and oranges as comparing Macintoshes with Delicious. The kind of knowledge Scranton describes here is essentially technological in the broad sense, in that it is geared toward achieving a concrete goal. "Adjusting practice, recursively, on the basis of outcomes" is a pretty good capsule definition of technology. Does anybody not do this? Well, consider the aphorism that insanity consists of doing the same thing and expecting different results. Consider the people with strings of failed relationships, failed jobs, failed diets.
The questions about the standards or metrics that would be used are quite legitimate. But they do not prove anything. The fact that standards are hard to define shows only that standards are hard to define; they do not show there are no standards or that one is free to ignore the issue. Indeed, we might term this The Fundamental Fallacy of Philosophy. Philosophers through the ages have been obsessed with the problems of human reasoning. The difficulties humans have in defining and identifying truth tell us a great deal about how our minds work. The one thing they do not and cannot do is tell us anything at all about the nature of reality.
Constant objects to [sociological] analyses as being "almost purely social rather than material, which of course reflects the first axiom . . . of social constructivism, that material results--facts--must be explained by social processes"
Insofar as Constant scores [sociology] as exemplifying an oversocialized mode of scholarship (the "social turn"), I must suggest that his exemplary cases are, by contrast, undersocialized. Beth, the figurative engineer working on "writing a computer program to simulate the behavior of a water desalinization system powered by photovoltaic cells" is a shadow person, a rational agent charged with a task. She relates to no deadline, no budget-conscious firm seeking results, no set of competitors working on analogous technological problems. We have instead a fine mind, a research apparatus, a foundational bundle of knowledges, and a decision framework that privileges, rightly it turns out, noise over signal. (sic)
As much as any passage I've seen, this one cuts to the heart of the "Science Wars." To the scientist, even one as interested in the history of science as I am, the process of science is basically one of adding information and concepts to the existing body of scientific knowledge. As fascinating as the cooperation of Darwin and Wallace was, the important thing was natural selection.
Also, as fascinating as I personally find pseudoscience, it is an impediment to science, nothing more. Immanuel Velikovsky and creationism are fascinating sociological phenomena, and they have interesting things to tell us about how scientists differ from non-scientists in their reasoning, and how society and science interact. They do not, in any sense of the word, contribute constructively to science, any more than arson contributes to fire safety by giving firemen on-the-job practice.
So from the perspective of many scientists these sociological phenomena are epiphenomena, side shows to the main event of increasing the knowledge base of science. Some, like Darwin and Wallace, are constructive, others, like creationism, are destructive. They may be fascinating, may even be capable of showing how to speed the process up or make it more reliable, but they are essentially peripheral.
To the sociologist, the established corpus of scientific knowledge is a substrate on which the interesting stuff happens. I don't have the slightest problem with this. The sociologist and I are examining two related parts of the same process; we even find some of the other's findings interesting. I start to see problems, though, when Scranton dismisses Constant's hypothetical engineer as "a shadow person." It smacks of tunnel vision and bears an obvious similarity to the way movie and literary critics frequently dismiss rational characters as "one-dimensional."
It's a bit like going to the reconstructed Globe Theater in London. An engineer might be fascinated by the reconstructed building without caring what was on stage. A drama student might focus on the play without caring about the building. Although I frankly find it hard to imagine anyone so one-dimensional as to be at either extreme.
The history of science as presented in science texts, especially older ones, is rightly unsatisfactory to sociologists. In the interests of providing students with a heuristic framework (frequently a historical approach is the best way to explain a complex concept) and a sense of historical orientation, the accounts were streamlined to the point where they presented a highly linear view of science devoid of false starts, blind alleys, and personality clashes. The reason textbooks do it perhaps a tad better than they used to, by the way, is partly due to the insights of sociologists. (But textbooks probably aren't that much better nowadays; my experience as a textbook author was that reviewers wanted history gutted entirely either to slim down the text or to make room for their own pet nanospecialties.)
Sociologists, on the other hand, need to realize that the way they present the history of science can seem just as distorted. However honorable their intent, their language seems at times to deny the existence of objective knowledge.
The question of objectivity has been an animating element of what has been termed, perhaps too casually, the "science wars," a continuing, acid exchange between some humanities and social science scholars on one hand and a group of social science and physical science scholars on the other. Constant is concerned that "crosscurrents of doubt" about the objectivity (and other aspects) of "scientific and technological knowledge hold profound dangers." It is worth registering a request for a fuller discussion of what is endangered, why, and how, but that is not my aim.
But it's worth answering. At the opposite end of the intellectual spectrum from the "Science Wars" (both camps), we have magic, a mode of thinking widespread in the world at large and even in American society. The magical thinker actually believes language can change reality; that wishing can make it so. Any mode of expressing ideas that encourages magical thinking is bad scholarship whatever its local academic merits might be.
Rather, I'd like to focus on what we mean by "objective knowledge." As I understand it, this refers to knowledge derived from observer-independent inquiry that also proves context-independent, hence reliable everywhere, transhistorical, and universal in the strong sense--at base, visions into the workings of nature. (In the strong model, humans are natural subjects.)
That's as good a definition as I've ever seen. But notice all the descriptive terms from a writer who earlier complained about coupling "spatiotemporal" to "universal." It rather suggests that Scranton knew perfectly well what was meant.
An undercurrent in this specification of objective knowledge is the question of whether "knowledge" is unitary or diverse. The unitary motif would count only the most fundamental of scientific findings as constituting knowledge, the rest as probabilistic, limited, and imperfect (though usually reliable) "information," some segments of which, with resolute efforts, might rise to the clarity and generality of mathematics, physics, and perhaps sections of engineering science. Referencing "diversity" instantly pluralizes "knowledge" into "knowledges," an array of situated information sets that describe environments and inform intentional actions, consistently but not uniformly.
On the whole this is pretty sound. One major problem I see here is the total absence of content . Science is pictured as fundamental laws or working principles. Where would we put the speed of light, the structure of table salt, the topography of Venus, cell mitosis and photosynthesis? These don't merely describe environments but are constant in all environments. And they inform intentional actions uniformly, not merely consistently. When I want to know how something works in biology, I don't go rediscover it myself; I go ask a biologist or read a book by one. If it's true for him it's true for me.
Earlier I described what I called The Fundamental Fallacy of Philosophy: the idea that the limitations of our minds tell us anything about the nature of reality. What we can call The Fundamental Fallacy of Modern Philosophy might be defined as the idea that it makes sense to study structure divorced from content. This is the idea that has given us businessmen who think they can "manage" without knowing anything about what they manage, critics who claim that only the technical excellence of a work of art matters, not its content, and sociologists of science like the one with whom I corresponded who think you can study the Velikovsky affair without regard to the scientific validity of Velikovsky's ideas.
In this frame, articulating a hierarchy from objective knowledge, "apprentice" objective knowledge (much of biology and medicine, mathematical economics), down to subjective information (our ways of going on in daily life, plus the rest of the academic disciplines) becomes irrelevant. Reliable knowledge exists in a variety of venues, each of which has linked values, expectations, and normative procedures for validating situated "truths."
Whoa! Non-sequitur alert! Huge non-sequitur!
First of all, probably for reasons of space limitations in Scranton's paper, this classification is extremely simplistic. There isn't a hierarchy - there are multiple ones all operating at once. First, there's the level of confirmation of ideas, with things like the Periodic Table at a very high level and, say, extraterrestrial intelligence at a very low level, and things like Immanuel Velikovsky at a negative level (that is, disconfirmed). Then there's the degree of completeness of theories, with again the Periodic Table very high, evolution and plate tectonics definitely less complete, and extrasolar planets way less complete. What Scranton terms "apprentice" fields are low on this hierarchy. This isn't the same as yet another hierarchy, the continuum from objective to subjective, with things like mathematics at one end and wholly personal tastes and preferences at the other. Nor is it true that "the rest of the academic disciplines" equate with "subjective." Historians certainly work with a fairly high degree of objectivity. Custer's Last Stand is certainly on a par with plate tectonics in terms of completeness, confirmation, and so on. Finally, there's the scope of applicability of ideas. Relativity and quantum mechanics apply to everything we know of in the physical world. Newtonian physics applies to low velocities and large quantum numbers. Plate tectonics applies to the Earth but not Venus. Photosynthesis applies only to plants, and so on.
The non-sequitur is in the jump from diversity to the assertion that hierarchies are irrelevant. If anything, the recognition of diversity demands the recognition of hierarchy in order to avert the slide into solipsism that many scientists fear from sociologists.
Recognizing diversity of hierarchies even helps us address one of the problems posed by Thomas Kuhn in Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Kuhn suggested that during a paradigm shift, the rules broke down and there was an interval during which there were no rules for deciding among rival paradigms. That might be true for people so close to the debate that nothing else mattered, but that would be only a tiny minority of scientists. The rest might not care about the specific debate but they would most assuredly care about its ramifications for their own disciplines. Oceanographers might not care about the distribution of fossil organisms or the distribution of earthquakes but they definitely were happy about the way plate tectonics did away with the need for vanished "land bridges" in the ocean basins. The rules might break down in a small area but that area is circumscribed by strict boundary conditions that must be satisfied.
A third perspective might be specified, wherein all claims to knowledge are equally immune to being certified or established as even "spatiotemporally" valid, much less objective--that is, knowledge as convention: arbitrary, grounded in exercises of power. It is this neo-sophist notion of knowledge as "whatever goes" against which, I think, Constant mounts his critique; but perhaps again he mistakes his target.
This is pretty disingenuous. Scranton knows perfectly well that this viewpoint exists or he wouldn't have mentioned it, and he describes it explicitly enough, using enough of the relevant buzzwords, that I think he knows perfectly well that this was the target Constant was critiquing.
How do the arguments and principles Constant brings forward in his article provide a basis for research initiatives in the history of technology?
This is a valid question but it's not the problem most scientists have with contemporary sociology and philosophy of science. We are not concerned with providing sociologists with a basis for a research program. Recall the end of Latour's dialog above:
"Let us do our work. You go do your dirty business elsewhere. If you don't understand the problem we're posing, don't disturb those of us who do."
This applies equally well against the extreme solipsist school of sociology and philosophy of science, as well as those in and out of academia who want to push an extreme relativist agenda for their own ideological reasons. These people are to sociology and philosophy of science what the "Sokalists" are to science. (Is it reasonably clear I'm not accusing sociology and philosophy of science in general?) To the extremists on the other side, science has a right to say:"If you don't understand why science has a valid claim to objective knowledge, and why undermining the belief in objective reality is dangerous not just to science but to society at large, don't disturb those of us who do."
Return to Pseudoscience Index Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page
Created 4 May 2000, Last Update 05 April 2011
Not an official UW Green Bay site


text:
Your browser does not support iframes.
The only game in town remains the solid redfish action going on in Brunswick County and northern South Carolina. Red drum have hit all year through any kind of weather, and the latest dusting of snow shouldn't put them off at all.
Despite water temps hitting 39 degrees consistently, the redfish bite has continued uninterrupted in the backwater creeks.
North Carolina fishing enthusiasts are about to get a great tool to help them in their angling endeavors. Veteran outdoors writer Mike Marsh is publishing "Fishing North Carolina," which is going to be a must-read for any angler who loves fishing this state.
The most popular and sought-after inshore fish in local waters during the winter are redfish. This is because they stay in the backwaters and school up in tight pods roaming the inside creeks and inlets feasting on small fish, ghost shrimp and crabs.
Redfish hit several types of lures well during the winter. You can often sight-cast to them in the clear, cold water. One thing to remember is to keep the noise down, and many redfish experts pole their boats with long poles rather than using trolling motors and anchors that will spook red drum schools.
The weather hasn't been the best for fishing thus far in 2011, though local waters have not stopped producing nice redfish in the back creeks. When the weather allows it, this action is available for those hardy enough to seek it.
For the first time in state history, speckled trout fishing is temporarily closed down. N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) Director Louis Daniel issued a proclamation last week closing all waters to commercial and recreational harvest of the important species for an indefinite period.
Winter is a great time to stock up on some of the essential inshore saltwater fishing gear you will need once the weather warms. One of the hardest markets for anglers to keep up in is the ever-changing world of fishing lures. It seems you can't walk into Walmart or Bass Pro Shop today without being bewildered by the number and choices available to you.
Fortunately, you have me to shift through the endless streams of sizes, scents and colors marketed to fishermen and give you advice on some lures that are as good at catching fish as catching your eye.
Cold weather dominates the fishing report but it doesn't stop the catches.
Anglers are still taking redfish in the backwater shallow creeks and that action has not slowed down. I have heard just a few reports of scattered trout running the tides near the bridges (and those were undersized), so I can't say the trout bite is on…but the redfish are really making up for it.
Inshore fishermen had to make the transition to bitter cold weather quickly this year, and the only fish that really responded well were the redfish. Despite the way winter roared in, the backwater redfish bite never slowed and continues to flourish.
The cold weather has slammed into North Carolina's inshore fishing but there are still drum to be found in the backwaters. Wintry winds and frigid temperatures have kept many anglers away from the water, although redfish are still out there for the taking.
Capt. Mark Dickson, of Shallow Minded Inshore Charters, poles the inshore waters looking for red rum this time of the year and he says they are schooled up nicely and prowling shallow water.
Though the weather has stayed relatively warm for us, the wintertime fishing season is almost here. The transition to cold weather species has already begun in the water as redfish and speckled trout become the predominate species sought after by anglers with the sea mullet making a nice showing before they disappear.
One important note before I get to the fishing report: new speckled trout size and creel limits are now in effect for all North Carolina anglers. Commercial fishermen are now prohibited from possession or sale of speckled trout on the weekend.
Copyright © 2019
The Brunswick Beacon is your source for local news, sports, events and information in Brunswick County, North Carolina and surrounding areas.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
WILSON, NC. – Autumn Lau led the team in scoring with 19-points in Tuesday's (Jan. 8) Conference Carolinas 78-51 loss against Barton College. With the loss, the Cobras fall to 9-4 on the year and 5-2 in league play.
The Cobras struggled offensively in the first half by giving up possession on 13 different occasions. The Bulldogs were able to capitalize by scoring 23-points off of turnovers, and led 41-24 at the half.
Coker started the second half with a 10-3 run to pull within ten points. The Bulldogs however, countered with a 16-4 run of their own to extended their lead to 24-points. The deficit proved to be too much for the Cobras as both teams exchanged buckets to end the game.
Along with her twin sister Autumn, Amber Lau finished in double-digit figures with 15-points.
As a team, the Cobras shot 37-percent (11-of-30) from the floor, and 88-percent (8-of-9) from the free throw line.
Coker will look to restore order again on the basketball court this Saturday (Jan. 12), when they host Limestone College in a Conference Carolinas match-up. The game is set for a 2 p.m. tip-off.


text:
change style to Narrow change
style to Normal change style to
Research Analyst III (General Pediatrics)
Discover Vanderbilt University Medical Center:
Located in Nashville, Tennessee, and operating at a global crossroads of teaching, discovery and patient care, VUMC is a community of individuals who come to work each day with the simple aim of changing the world. It is a place where your expertise will be valued, your knowledge expanded and your abilities challenged. It is a place where your diversity -- of culture, thinking, learning and leading -- is sought and celebrated. It is a place where employees know they are part of something that is bigger than themselves, take exceptional pride in their work and never settle for what was good enough yesterday. Vanderbilt's mission is to advance health and wellness through preeminent programs in patient care, education, and research.
Click Here To View The VUMC Promise of Discovery
Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt is one of the nation's leading children's hospitals. We treat and help prevent all health issues ranging from colds and broken bones to heart disease and cancer.
The world-class facilities at Children's Hospital are a testament to our community's dedication to the health of children. Constructed in 2004 and expanded in 2012, our 271-bed hospital is a child-friendly place built on the science of healing.
A building alone does not make a great hospital. Our exceptional medical teams and the generous support of people like you enable us to provide every child who comes to us with the hope of improved health. Children's Hospital is a nonprofit facility. No child who needs our services is denied care on the basis of limited ability to pay.
Many of our doctors and surgeons are nationally recognized researchers who are finding new ways to cure and prevent childhood diseases. Their work preventing and treating premature birth, cancer, heart disease, spina bifida, and many other conditions is an investment in the future. We are at an important crossroads in child health. Our commitment to research and advocacy positions us to bring the promise of good health to children and families in our community and to share that hope with the world.
Your Role :
This is a highly data-centric Research Analyst III role with the potential for growth into a higher-level data position. The accuracy and validity of our data are of the utmost importance for multiple projects. Data are continually cleaned and checked through multiple detailed procedures which must be followed to the letter. Therefore, it is absolutely critical for the candidate to have extraordinary attention to detail and be able to quickly learn and follow complicated, nuanced directions.
Our data are typically imported, exported, and compiled from many different sources, and experience with the following programs is highly desirable: Access, Excel, REDCap, and Stata. This position will require building of REDCap databases. We also use several specialized, web-based data portals, and the candidate should have the demonstrated ability and drive to quickly learn new software. While it is not a requirement to be an expert on all of the above applications, being familiar with as many as possible will minimize the transition or training duration and is a big plus.
The candidate should know how to perform tasks like correctly removing duplicate or extraneous records and combining datasets by merging records based on a unique ID (e.g., through Excel's VLOOKUP or Stata's merge function).
The ideal candidate will have demonstrated experience working with different types of longitudinal data in both "long" and "wide" formats.
The candidate must be able to work both independently and as part of a team to troubleshoot problems and come up with solutions. The candidate should be comfortable making and delivering reports to groups of people (e.g., using PowerPoint), as well as explaining complex issues to people who may have less familiarity with data-related topics.
Position Qualifications
Bachelor's Degree (or equivalent experience) and 4 years experience
VUMC Recent Accomplishments
Because we are committed to providing the best in patient care, education and research, we are proud of our recent accomplishments:
* US News & World Report: #1 Hospital in Tennessee, #1 Health Care Provider in Nashville, #1 Audiology ( Bill Wilkerson Center ), 12 adult and 10 pediatric clinical specialties ranked among the nation's best, #15 Education and Training
* Truven Health Analytics: among the top 50 cardiovascular hospitals in the U.S.
* Becker's Hospital Review: one of the "100 Greatest Hospitals in America"
* The Leapfrog Group: grade "A" in Hospital Safety Score
* National Institutes of Health: among the top 10 grant awardees for medical research in the US
* Magnet Recognition Program: Vanderbilt nurses are the only group honored in Tennessee
* Nashville Business Journal: Middle Tennessee's healthiest employer
* American Hospital Association: among the 100 "Most Wired" medical systems in the US


text:
USDA lowered its estimate of U.S. corn production by a staggering 1.82 billion bushels from last month due to persistent and extreme June dryness across the central and eastern Corn Belt and extreme late June and early July heat from the central Plains to the Ohio River Valley.
Projected U.S. corn yield was lowered 20 bushels per acre to 146 bushels reflecting the rapid decline in crop conditions since early June and the latest weather data. Estimated production in USDA's July 11 Crop Production report was lowered from 14.79 billion bushels to 12.97 billion bushels.
Reduced supplies and higher prices are expected to sharply lower 2012-13 corn usage with the biggest reduction for feed and residual disappearance, projected down 650 million bushels. Food, seed, and industrial use is also projected lower, down 105 million bushels, mostly reflecting a 100-million-bushel reduction in corn used to produce ethanol.
Corn exports are projected 300 million bushels lower as tight supplies, higher prices, and strong competition from South American exporters limit U.S. shipments. Ending stocks for 2012-13 are projected at 1.2 billion bushels, down 698 million from last month's projection.
Soybean production is projected at 3.050 billion bushels, down 155 million bushels as increased harvested area is more than offset by reduced yields. Harvested area, estimated at 75.3 million acres is 2.3 million above the June projection.
Projected soybean yield is projected at 40.5 bushels per acre, down 3.4 bushels from last month. The drop reflects sharply declining crop conditions resulting from limited rainfall since early April coupled with excessive heat across much of the producing area in late June and early July.
Soybean exports for 2012-13 are reduced 115 million bushels to 1.37 billion reflecting lower U.S. supplies. Soybean ending stocks are projected at 130 million bushels, down 10 million. Soybean exports for 2011-12 are projected at 1.34 billion bushels, up 5 million, reflecting strong late-season sales and increased imports for China.
Global soybean production is projected at 267.2 million tons, down 3.9 million mostly due to lower production in the United States.
Cotton production for 2012-13 is unchanged at 17 million bales, despite a 4-percent reduction in planted area since the June acreage forecast. Exports are raised due to higher projected global imports and slightly reduced foreign competition. Ending stocks are now projected at 4.8 million bales.
World production is reduced 1.5 million bales due to decreases for India, Pakistan, and others.
Estimated U.S. rice production in 2012-13 was raised 4 percent to 191 million hundredweight this month due mostly to an increase in harvested area, which was raised 107,000 acres to 2.64 million acres. It is still the lowest since 1987-88. Ending stocks for 2011-12 are projected at 29 million hundredweight, up 3.5 million, or 14 percent from a month ago.
Global 2012-13 rice production and ending stocks are reduced from last month, and consumption and trade are raised slightly. Global production is projected at 465.1 million tons, still a record despite decreases totaling 1.4 million mostly due to reductions for India and Ecuador.


text:
Breaking NewsFloyd Mayweather says he broke off his engagement with Shantel Jackson because she got an ABORTION without his blessing ... this according to the boxer's social media pages. Floyd's Facebook page AND his Instagram account each displayed an image of what appears to be ultrasound results and analysis showing at least two fetuses.
The document was accompanied by a caption that read, "The real reason me and Shantel Christine Jackson @missjackson broke up was because she got a abortion, and I'm totally against killing babies. She killed our twin babies."
Floyd and Shantel split up last year ... after Floyd had given her a $10 million diamond engagement ring. Jackson recently told us she has moved on.
We've tried to reach out to Floyd's camp -- so far, no luck.


text:
Spire Placed On Top New World Trade Center [PHOTOS]
A 16-foot section of the top of the new World Trade Center building was placed on top of the construction Wednesday. World Trade Center One is another step closer to being the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere.
Workers lifted the first piece of the 408-foot spire over 100 stories to the top of the tower. The spire is divided into 18 sections, weighing between 5 tons and more than 67 tons.When finished the building will stand 1776 feet over Manhattan.
According to officials, despite delays caused by Hurricane Sandy the tower is on track for completion in 2013.


text:
- Home
- News
- Sports
- Opinion
- Obituaries
- Features
- Special Sections
- Classifieds
- Public Notices
The United Way of Lancaster County (UWLC) is seeking participants for the Lancaster County Community Garden.
Now in its fourth year, the community garden is near the Lancaster Parks and Recreation Department at 260 Plantation Road.
Garden sites will be provided free for participants to grow their own produce. Free seeds and plants will be provided.
Applications are available at the United Way of Lancaster County office, 109 S. Wylie St. For more information, call (803) 283-8923 or email email@example.com.
If you currently subscribe or have subscribed in the past to the The Lancaster News, then simply find your account number on your mailing label and enter it below.
Click the question mark below to see where your account ID appears on your mailing label.
|ZIP Code:


text:
This content has been marked as final. Show 1 reply
1. Re: Hibernate and datasourcelostiniceland Feb 28, 2012 10:39 AM (in response to Sunil Pandit)
I am also interested in this.
As far as I know, Hibernate is not yet OSGiyfied so there will be problems when it comes to ClassLoading. Thats why I used EclipseLink within a Eclipse RCP for JPA. However, since AS 7 provides a OSGi-subsystem for web-bundles I expected some kind of integration. Is there a way to use Hibernate or would I have to leave the osgi-subsystem (calling an EJB for instance) which wrapps my data-access-logic?


text:
While this is in no way direct confirmation that a new Marvel vs. Capcom game is in the works, Kevin Feige, President of Production at Marvel Studios did give fans a ray of hope to cling to before an official announcement is made. When asked if a new Marvel vs. Capcom game is possible someday Feige said, "Yes. And maybe sooner than you think."
An interesting note: Capcom has a title in the works in Japan called Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes. Because of various licensing issues with Tatsunoko it's virtually impossible that the game will ever make it stateside. Keeping that in mind, the graphics engine and fighting mechanics are already in place which would make it very easy to import Marvel characters and push the game out the door in a relatively short amount of time.
Again, this doesn't confirm the existence of a new Marvel vs. Capcom title, but it's certainly something to hang on to until a meaningful announcement is made one way or the other. We'll have more on this as it develops.


text:
memorial day quotes and poems
POEMS & POETRY famous quotes and quotations on memorial day by noted authors, writers, poets, soldiers, veterans, more. Poetry is a means of communication, poems about life can describe how we are feeling or express our hopes and dreams for the future like and share our memorial day holiday quote collection. Learn about the history of Memorial Day enjoy the best martin luther king, jr. Discover facts about Memorial Day, and why we recognize it as a national holiday quotes at brainyquote. Memorial Quotes | Funeral Quotes | Bereavement Quotes quotations by martin luther king, jr. Funeral Quotes are a good way to help communicate your emotions and offer comfort to greiving friends and , american leader, born january 15, 1929. Checkout out Memorial Day pictures share with your friends. Browse the latest galleries and more on HISTORY wishes quotes, wallpapers, images, photos, greeting cards, facebook status, whatsapp status for upcoming events. com comfort and uplift a grieving heart with these condolence words, sympathy card message phrases, condolence messages, and sympathy quotes. Happy Memorial Day 2017 Images May 29, 2017 Memorial Day 2017 looking for memorial day quotes? if so, you ll love this collection of memorial day quotations! this list includes some of the greatest memorial quotes and quotations. We have provided enough material on our website but still since Memorial Day is such a huge event we memorial day essay slogan and speech: hi there welcome back to the blog and here i have collected some top collection of essay for memorial day 2017 and best speeches. Memorial Day, now observed on the last Monday of May, is the day of the year set aside for Americans to commemorate the men and women of the United States for each card, you may choose one of the quotes or prayers we have listed here. Part of The Memorial Day website's mission is to be a central point for finding information on the day, and to provide an online community for people to share their you can even write your own text to fill the space, like a personal quote or even a. Memorial Day is a day to reflect on those military service members who have served and died check out exclusive memorial day videos and features. Provided is a listing of major eve browse the latest memorial day videos and more on history. Memorial Day is devoted to honoring those who died in service to our country and in memory of loved ones hwo have passed away com. Memorandum for the Heads of Exec Depts and Agencies Subject: White House Program for the National Moment of Remembrance 3 May 2000 As Memorial Day approaches, it is learn how to choose memorial quotes and memorial sayings and phrases from our funeral experts. For each card, you may choose one of the quotes or prayers we have listed here read helpful memorial quote articles from your tribute. You can even write your own text to fill the space, These quotes are in alphabetical Famous quotes and quotations on Memorial Day by noted authors, writers, poets, soldiers, veterans, more


text:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Despite publicly disavowing candidate Todd Akin after his "legitimate rape" remark, the National Republican Senatorial Committee quietly sent $760,000 to Missouri in a last-ditch attempt to aid Akin's unsuccessful bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
The long-suspected money shuffling, which had never previously been confirmed, is detailed in a postelection campaign finance report filed this week by the Missouri Republican State Committee. A spokesman for Senate Democrats asserted Friday that the funding was "underhanded and dishonest."
The Republican senatorial committee had said it would no longer support Akin after the suburban St. Louis congressman remarked in August that women's bodies have ways of avoiding pregnancy in what he called "legitimate rape." Although Akin apologized, he refused calls from leading Republicans to drop out of the race so that the Missouri GOP could field a replacement candidate.
By remaining in the race, Akin left the Republican senatorial committee with an awkward decision: Reverse course and support Akin, regardless of how it might affect the party's image, or stand pat and further jeopardize Akin's chances of winning and the GOP's chances of taking control of the Senate. It split the difference — publicly standing by its disavowal of Akin while privately funneling money to his campaign.
A federal campaign finance report shows that the Missouri Republican State Committee received $760,000 from the NRSC in two payments made Nov. 1 and Nov. 2. About the same time, the state Republican committee made two payments totaling $756,000 for TV ads supporting Akin, according to the finance report.
Neither the NRSC nor the state GOP committee would confirm the source of the money at the time of the ad buys. Spokesmen for the two Republican groups did not immediately return messages Friday.
Akin's former campaign spokesman, Ryan Hite, said Friday that he always had assumed the money came from the NRSC.
"No one actually ever officially told us," Hite said. But "everything tended to be implied of where the state committee got this money. ... It was very quiet."
Democrats denounced the secretive payments as deceptive.
"It was underhanded and dishonest that they would purposely mislead the public about their actions," said Matt Canter, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
McCaskill campaign manager Adrianne Marsh said it was "insulting to Missourians that the NRSC thought they could get away" with quietly directing money to Akin.
"I don't know what's worse, the hypocrisy or the evasion," Marsh said.
The money was too little, too late to help Akin. McCaskill solidly defeated him with 55 percent of the vote to his 39 percent — the largest victory margin for a Missouri Senate race in 18 years.
Akin had expressed frustration during the campaign that the Republican senatorial group had not publicly supported him as part of their drive to gain the four seats necessary to take control of the Senate away from Democrats. As it turned out, Democrats ended up gaining two additional Senate seats.
"I don't know if anyone could pinpoint exactly what won or lost the election for McCaskill or for Akin, but I'm sure that having those expenditures earlier on would definitely have given us a boost — I have no doubt about that," Hite said.
One organization that did publicly come to Akin's defense was the Kansas City-based Now or Never Political Action Committee, which launched a $1 million ad buy in the closing days of the campaign. At the time, the source of that money also was unclear.
A finance report filed this week by the organization shows it received $800,000 from wealthy Missouri businessman Rex Sinquefield on Nov. 1. That came one day after the organization reported making a similarly sized payment for ads supporting Akin. The committee also had other contributors, and made an additional $200,000 ad buy for Akin on Nov. 2.
Since his loss, Akin has sent emails to supporters seeking money to pay off campaign debt. But it's not clear how much he still owes, because his campaign declined to release a summary of its postelection finance report.
McCaskill's campaign provided a summary Friday showing she spent nearly $19.3 million on her re-election and has a debt of $238,000. Marsh said the campaign has outstanding invoices for ad production.
Associated Press writer David Espo contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.
David A. Lieb can be reached at http://twitter.com/DavidALieb


text:
At Saint Michael's, the people you meet here make the difference… from our driven student body, to our dedicated team of faculty and staff, to our engaged alumni community. That's why as our student, you can expect a unique, personalized educational experience at one of the friendliest colleges in one of the most praised and coveted states in the country. That's also why you can expect your graduate school to work with your schedule and your checkbook.
You don't enroll at Saint Michael's for just a graduate degree. You come here because you want more from your life, from your career, from yourself. So join us and experience why so many, just like you, choose Saint Michael's.


text:
Electronic tendering system
The Agency uses an electronic tendering system for procurement. 'Calls for Tender' are submitted through the system and automatically loaded onto tender advertising portals such as the Official Journal of the European Union and Tenders Electronic Daily.
To receive email notifications about procurement opportunities you can register as a supplier.
All information on procurement opportunities, existing contracts and our financial transactions are made publically available, and can be accessed through our website via the Contracts and tenders page at the link below. We do not publish commercially sensitive information or information that may be used to obtain an unfair competitive advantage.
Please note that the introduction of the system supersedes our current practice of publishing notices within our internet site.
Joint Code of Practice for Quality Assurance in Research (JCoPR)
The FSA, together with Defra, BBSRC (the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council) and NERC (the Natural Environment Research Council) has developed this Code of Practice to help ensure that science and evidence commissioned by the FSA is consistently of a high and reliable quality.
The Code was launched in May 2003 and took effect from 1 June 2004. The FSA and Defra commissioned UKAS (the United Kingdom Accreditation Service) in 2006 to audit a sample of FSA / Defra science and evidence projects against the provisions of the Code. The generic findings from the two year UKAS audit programme were disseminated amongst QA managers and other interested parties at a joint FSA / Defra workshop in Reading in March 2009.
The Code has been subsequently revised by FSA and Defra as a result of both the audit findings and workshop outputs, with input from BBSRC, NERC and the UK Devolved Administrations. The latest version of the Code is on the GOV.UK website.


text:
VANCEBORO � This West Craven baseball team is familiar with adversity � but not huge expectations.
VANCEBORO � This West Craven baseball team is familiar with adversity � but not huge expectations.
This season, the Eagles are expected by many to compete for the Coastal 3A Conference championship, largely due to 10 returning seniors.
�I�m excited to have all that experience back, with 10 seniors, seven of which are starters. We should be very good,� West Craven coach Mike McKeel said.
�They�ve all been working very hard and doing morning workouts and pushing each other. I think they are ready to play for each other and play for West Craven.�
The Eagles dealt with plenty of off-the-field troubles last year to last them a lifetime, but persevered through it all to make the playoffs.
In the first round, they fell to tradition-rich Eastern Wayne, 3-2.
West Craven returns its three leading hitters from last season in centerfielder Logan Nobles, catcher Hunter Hackney and second baseman Tyler Williams, who is moving to shortstop.
The Eagles will also be strong on the mound with Nobles, Michael Coombs, Justin Taylor and Josh Pate.
�I think we are all ready to have our best years this year as seniors,� Williams said.
�For me, moving to shortstop and the other side of the field will be different, seeing the ball differently off the bat, but I�m going to play my best for my teammates and I know they will for me too.�
Nobles and Hackney both committed to play baseball at the next level, but still feel they have a lot to prove.
�We have a bad taste in our mouths from losing in the first round of the playoffs last year,� Hackney said.
�We want to advance further into the playoffs this season. Practice has been going a lot smoother this year and we all want to win pretty badly.�
West Craven opens the season at Farmville Central Wednesday.
The Eagles have a tough non-conference schedule, and play some high-quality teams in conference.
�We play in a tough conference with South Central and D.H. Conley, and we definitely believe that we can compete for the conference title.� McKeel said.
�I think the guys� main goal is getting further in the postseason. I think the biggest key for us is just to stay healthy.�
Two of the Eagles� best pitchers Michael Coombs and Nobles are bouncing back from injuries.
�We have the expectations to be better, but we also expect ourselves to be better,� Nobles said.
�We are just going to go into every game and every at bat and take advantage of it and make the most out of it.�
Nobles is headed to Wake Tech after the high school season and Hackney will be the backstop of the future at St. Andrews.
Jordan Honeycutt can be reached at 252-635-5670 or at email@example.com. Follow Jordan on Twitter @JHONEYnbsj29


text:
Cnr O'Brien & Hosie Street
Bairnsdale, VIC, 3875
Telephone: (03) 5152 6577
Facsimile: (03) 5152 6380
Email: accounts@bairnsdalemar...
Monday to Friday : 8.30am - 5.00pm
Saturday : 9.00am - 12.00pm
Sunday : Closed
(03) 5152 6577
Bairnsdale Marine has been a well established business for over 24 years.
Kevin Fulton began the business in Collins Street, Bairnsdale on his own by purchasing a house with a vacant block. Kevin then went on to build a small factory in which he planned to operate his marine repair business.
Kevin obtained the Yamaha outboard franchises and became to the most knowledgeable marine mechanic this side of Melbourne.
Bairnsdale Marine has recently relocated to O'Brien Street, Bairnsdale to much larger premises, giving customers easy access.
There doesn't appear to be any news for this topic! Please check back later.


text:
Criminal cases
This information was the most current on file in criminal division of Marion County District Court as of Aug. 24. Information often is not available until more than a week after hearings. Journal entries must be checked by the defense, prosecution, and judge before they are filed.
Justin L. Chrisjohn, 144 N. Roosevelt, Marion; pleaded no-contest Aug. 6 to battery; sentencing scheduled for Sept. 17.
Adrian Jarod Clay, 300 E. 27th Room 6A, Newton; prosecution withdrew motion to revoke bond Aug. 15; defendant released from custody.
Cody James Larson-Yates, 7284 W. 1400 Road, Centerville; plan for diversion announced Aug. 6; diversion status hearing scheduled for Sept. 17.
Mara Annette Hochstetler, 107 W. 6th St., Peabody; pleaded no-contest July 6 to one count of giving a worthless check; two other counts of giving a worthless check dismissed; sentenced to 90-day controlling jail term and six months probation; ordered to pay $263.46 restitution.
Harley Brammer, 911 S. Santa Fe, Chanute; sentenced July 23 on probation revocation on charges of possession of an hallucinogenic drug (marijuana) and possession of methamphetamine; sentenced to 11 months imprisonment and 12 months probation for possession of marijuana and 15 months imprisonment, 12 months probation, and 18 months drug treatment for possession of methamphetamine; given 217 days credit for jail time.
Trenton Duane Vogt, 8028 Vintage Terrace, Claremore, Okla.; Aug. 6 status hearing on charges of residential burglary, criminal trespass, and attempted misdemeanor theft; scheduling conference scheduled for Sept. 17.
Robert C. Lucas, 11919 W. Carr Court, Wichita; failed to appear Aug. 6 on charges of possession of an hallucinogenic drug (marijuana), possession of drug paraphernalia, driving while license canceled, suspended, or revoked, and no proof of insurance; bench warrant issued with no bond.
Jerome D. Creed, 301 Santa Fe, Marion; first appearance Aug. 6 on charges of criminal damage to property and criminal trespass; arraignment scheduled for Aug. 20. Hearing on motion to terminate imposition of sentence on violation of a protection order continued from Aug. 6 to Aug. 20.
Douglas Bryant Eden, 116 W. 3rd St., Peabody; arraigned Aug. 14 on motion to revoke probation; denied allegations; hearing scheduled for Sept. 24.
Billy Joe Prater Jr., 102 Santa Fe No. 6, Marion; stipulated to probation violation Aug. 14; probation reinstated for 12 months; ordered to perform 15 hours community service and undergo drug and alcohol evaluation; prohibited from having social contact with anyone younger than 18.
Marjorie A. Huffman, 2578 Goldenrod Road, Hillsboro; first amended complaint filed Aug. 17; charged with two counts of permitting a dangerous animal to be at large.
Christopher R. Wilson, 126 Forrest, Marion; pleaded no-contest Aug. 14 to disorderly conduct; given six-month suspended sentence and ordered to pay $160.
Douglas Edward Gable, 616 Topeka, Lincolnville; plea hearing continued from Aug. 14 to Aug. 20 on charges of possession of an hallucinogenic drug (marijuana), possession of methamphetamine, possession of hydrocodone, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Adam E. Williams, 808 Murrow Court, Lawrence; first appearance Aug. 14 on charge of furnishing alcohol to a minor; arraignment scheduled for Sept. 12.
Frank James Wilson, 225 W. Ruth St., Moundridge; plea agreement filed Aug. 16; agrees to plead guilty or no-contest to residential burglary and two counts felony theft, payment of restitution, and no contact with victims; in return prosecution agrees to dismiss charges of non-residential burglary, criminal damage to property, criminal trespass, and eight counts of misdemeanor theft, and to recommend probation with no automatic jail time.
Robert E. Price, 300 W. Albert, Maize; pleaded guilty July 18 to driving while license suspended; not wearing a seatbelt dismissed; sentenced to 30-day controlling jail term and six months probation, ordered to pay $338 fine and fees.
Jose Alejandro De La Torre, 501 N. Brady St. No. 48, Abilene; pleaded guilty to speeding (81 mph in a 65 mph zone); no Kansas driver's license dismissed; ordered to pay $179 fine and fees.
Gary D. Williams, 202 Garfield, Marion; order to serve 48 hours in jail beginning Aug. 24 vacated Aug. 20 on motion to revoke probation; ordered to serve 48 hours in jail beginning Aug. 23;
Leslie W. Coker, 3033 S. Fern Ave., Wichita; hearing continued from Aug. 8 to Sept. 17.
Edwin D. Brown Jr., 507 S. Barlow, Wichita; first appearance Aug. 15 on charges of speeding (76 mph in 65 mph zone) and driving while license suspended; arraignment scheduled for Sept. 19.
Chelsea L. Felton, 2205 Thompson Drive, Junction City; first appearance Aug. 15 on charges of excessive speeding (107 mph in a 65 mph zone) and reckless driving; arraignment scheduled for Sept. 19.
Cody L. Fistler, 785 N. Old Mill, Peabody; failed to appear Aug. 16 on a charge of driving while license canceled, suspended, or revoked; charge of no insurance dismissed Aug. 21.
Marcos Erik Garcia, 4912 S. Tierra Ave., Wichita; arraignment continued from Aug. 15 to Sept. 19 on charges of excessive speeding (86 mph in a 65 mph zone), passenger brake light not working, driving while license suspended, and transporting liquor in an open container.
Last modified Aug. 29, 2012