Category Archives: Peter Galison

Objectivity, and Other Myths We Tell Ourselves

I come to my literature degree still carrying the baggage of having worked in a hospital operating room for a long time. Maybe it is not surprising to say that I have left filled with images and stories, and I am still trying to find a way of articulat… Continue reading

Posted in 20th Century, biomedicine, history of science, Lorraine Daston, meaning-making, objectivity, Peter Galison, subjectivity, Visuality | Comments Off on Objectivity, and Other Myths We Tell Ourselves

Mounds of Venus, or What a Pile of Goddess Guts Can Teach Us About Objectivity

In their history of science tome, Objectivity (2010), Daston and Galison examine how the modern concept of objectivity emerged from the mid-nineteenth-century sciences. They argue that this ideal of objectivity requires “the suppression of some aspec… Continue reading

Posted in 19th Century, anatomical venus, erotic science, exquisite corpse, Gender studies, history of science, lady parts, Lorraine Daston, medical ethics, Peter Galison, torso explosion, Visuality | Comments Off on Mounds of Venus, or What a Pile of Goddess Guts Can Teach Us About Objectivity

“PLANET AGAINST SEABOARD” and Other Sentimental Fictions

In his analysis of Cloud Atlas, Killian C. Quigley takes a deeper look into the sentiments that transcend the human experience and why they affect us so deeply. He considers the novel not simply a book, but a collection of human struggles that connect not only the characters within the stories, but the readers as […] Continue reading

Posted in ambiguity, branding, California, Chatham Isle, Cloud Atlas, David Mitchell, education, empire, england, expansion, Flanders, imperialism, Lorraine Daston, marketing, New Zealand, novel, objectivity, Peter Galison, planet, Richard Hakluyt, semiotics, solidarity, UNICEF, voyaging, Yangon, Yukon | Comments Off on “PLANET AGAINST SEABOARD” and Other Sentimental Fictions

Bernhard Siegfried Albinus and Brian Jacques

In the following blog post, Killian C. Quigley discusses Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison’s Objectivity in conjunction with personal and societal perceptions of “nature.” The author gives a anecdotal story about how the books he read as a child influenced his contemporary view on nature, and relates it to Daston and Galison’s theories of “truth-to-nature,” […] Continue reading

Posted in 18th century, animals, Bernhard Siegfried Albinus, Bleak House, Brian Jacques, Charles Dickens, constructions of nature, Emer de Vattel, Fantasy, image, J.R.R. Tolkien, Kenneth Grahame, Law of Nations, Lorraine Daston, natural history, natural world, naturalist, nature, objectivity, Omaha, painting, Peter Galison, Redwall, Robin Jarvis, Run Wild, Science and humanities, scientific sight, The Deptford Histories, The Lord of the Rings, The Wind in the Willows, Tom McCaughren, zoo, Zoobooks | Comments Off on Bernhard Siegfried Albinus and Brian Jacques

The Perfect Type

What is “perfect?” You can cite dictionary definitions, but in the end those are essentially impossible ideals to obtain. “Perfection” as we know it is almost a purely theoretical concept, used mostly as emphasis. But Dan Fang discusses perfection in the context of scientific endeavour; what is considered a “perfect” organism, so that it is […] Continue reading

Posted in archetype, Brave New World, dystopia, Eugenics, Lorraine Daston, objectivity, perfection, Peter Galison, repetition, subjectivity, type | Comments Off on The Perfect Type

How People Do Science

Erin Pellarin, in response to Dan King’s post, further examines the idea of humans becoming things, but this time in a historical scientific context. Rather than focusing on the future world imagined in Brave New World, she instead looks to examples in our past and details how people have already been objectified in the name […] Continue reading

Posted in Ethics of science, future relations, human interaction in science, humans as things/machines, Lorraine Daston, objectivity, Peter Galison, science, truth-to-nature | Comments Off on How People Do Science