Untitled

[famoustrashlight-blog]

Perception of Science (2/8)

Longino’s piece set me up for the idea that science is social in nature, which is a different perspective than I have ever been exposed to previously. I used to believe that science just comes into being, that it just is. Science is not to be questioned because we perceive it as fact. In reality, we build off each other’s ideas, and science is reworked and reconstructed by humans. We create science, so as a society we have the right and the responsibility to question scientific findings. A healthy level of skepticism builds the foundation of good and reliable science. My overall understanding of science has changed in the sense that I do not view it as black and white or right and wrong; it is a fluid and ongoing accumulation of various ideas.

[famoustrashlight-blog]

Counterargument (1/29)

Our perception of crack cocaine usage—flawed by media, politics, and science—establishes a new way to divide us as a society. “The Culture of Poverty, Crack Babies, and Welfare Cheats” defines crack addiction as an excuse to vilify impoverished black communities as a “bad” kind of poor, as if they deserve to live from paycheck to paycheck. Black women are targeted for drug offenses, and this creates legal evidence to suggest minorities are lesser. In some instances, pregnant black women were screened before delivery, and babies tested positive for cocaine were given a new class title: the bio-underclass. Crack babies lended legitimacy to the idea that science could prove a division of the classes. At first, I questioned why this article refused to accept cocaine as a danger, but this wasn’t the authors’ argument; they intended to break down the social barriers we associate with crack abuse. This resonated with me, not only because every piece of information I had previously been given suggested the negative effects of cocaine usage, but because I have never viewed drug abuse as a way to racially discriminate. 

The progression in which we read each set of articles lead me to believe crack cocaine usage can be detrimental to a child’s health, but these readings presented new facts. I do not necessarily question science as a whole, because every scientific journal presented facts in a way that best represented their findings for the given experimental group. I believe the situation is more complicated than one article could account for. Despite the outcome, each study brings science one step closer to defining and identifying the true effects of cocaine, on an individual and a society. 

[famoustrashlight-blog]

Fact or Fiction (1/26)

Advocacy for “crack babies” differs from concrete evidence that children exposed to crack cocaine suffer from various developmental obstacles, and articles that intend to promote awareness may lack sufficient proof that effectively drives their argument forward. The four articles all provided similar reasons why crack cocaine negatively impacts a child’s life from birth. According to the articles, prenatal exposure to the drug causes complications during delivery--if the child is alive at all. Crack babies face neurological damage, such as hypersensitivity, difficulty with language reception, and poor visual motor performance. If a child is fortunate enough to be physically unaffected by his/her mother’s drug habits, he/she struggles to overcome the socioeconomic barriers that accompany living in a cocaine-abusing household. Crack kids may be subjected to abandonment, food insecurity, and in some extreme cases, the foster care system.  

While the articles summarize potential consequences of drug usage, they do not elaborate on the origin of their evidence. I struggled to stay entertained as a reader because I questioned the author’s authority. The author strategically emphasized statistical statements to create sympathy or guilt for this unacknowledged “epidemic” surging through our nation's cities, rather than communicate valid data. In this sense, I thought the scientific journals gave me a more complete understanding of the crisis involving crack cocaine because they presented REAL, scientifically-backed data to suggest a correlation between cocaine usage during pregnancy and its effects on children. 

I do believe a combination of the two sets of articles would create a solid argument; substantial data and results would strengthen the analysis made in the second set of readings, which explains the outcome of scientific findings in a relatable and comprehensible manner; knowing more about the effects of cocaine creates a better understanding of how we may help cocaine addicts and their families.