Thank you for this generative breakdown of the myopic Nature Comms article! In particular, I wanted to highlight this question you asked: “what data and conclusions *could* this algorithm have produced if oriented towards a more critical impulse?” I hadn’t considered that line of questioning. And it seems like a good one for this example, but also…[Read more]

Glad to hear that some of these questions might be generative for discussion! Thank you for elucidating the data-structure dynamic, and especially for pointing me to/rehashing the cataloguing example. Looking at the rubber-meeting-road moments helps clarify how an abstract question about data and structure plays out based on contingencies. I…[Read more]

Agreed about clarity! I wonder what precisely made these readings, for the most part, so clear? We talked about the straightforward, playful style of the DSC last week.

The “subversion” angle is interesting, especially your language about the “already” versus other temporalities. The way you defined “subversion” (roughly, using the tools of…[Read more]

I found this post really stimulating! In particular, I find your emphasis on the slipperiness of “objective” and “factual,” and the way they get tagged as “innocent” (which perhaps means disentangled socially and politically?) so helpful. I’d love to think more about the dichotomy of “objectivity” and “subjectivity” in some of these readings, as…[Read more]