Beach Haven

Bibliography
​Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Review by Michael Beach
 
In this work, Harry Collins and Robert Evans describe a framework for understanding  expertise. They divide these forms of authoritative knowledge into ‘ubiquitous’ and ‘specialist’ expertise, then offer several forms of tables to depict related topical continua for each. For the authors, ubiquitous expertise is that sort that most people possess so no particular authority is ascribed to it other than one might note if it seems missing in a person. As the expertise requires ever more effort to attain, the continuum approaches the realm of specialist expertise.

Science and technology are considered as a “provider of truth” as they attempt to analyze “the meaning of the expertise upon which the practice of science and technology rests” (Collins and Evans 2007, 2). The note that this provider-of-truth view has been questioned more over time. They share perceptions that some have come to place more confidence in ‘folk wisdom’ or ‘common sense’ over positions taken by scientists. They note a ‘tension’ between legitimacy or trust and the approach of increased involvement of ‘the public’. This increase in public involvement they call ‘extension’.  The opposite of extension is referred to as scientism. This is often found in scientists themselves. Essentially, scientism is a belief that science is the best and maybe only answer to understanding the nature of things. Scientism discourages involvement by those not specially trained in a narrow field that proponents consider acceptable.
​
After describing the framework through a series of continua, the authors conclude with three summation questions. They ask about appropriate ratios of influence between science and politics. They wonder which of the sciences should be included in a given discussion in order to understand what is science and what is pseudoscience. Finally Collins and Evans ask if the public can recognize what they need to in order to make “appropriate decisions” (Collins and Evans 2007, 134). Of course the reader might challenge the authors with the question of how to define ‘appropriate’. They go on to argue that “experts should obviously have a relatively greater input where their results are more reliable” (Ibid.). I suppose that ‘reliable results’ would be understood from the position of expected, or at least hoped for, outcomes. Narrow expertise makes for less wholistic understanding. At the same time, one can be an expert without all the accolades of accredited institutions. For example, who has better insight, the doctor of agrology or the farmer? What does better mean? Perhaps each helps the other to see what neither can on their own.

Bibliography
​Kaku, M. (2008). Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration Into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Auckland: Doubleday.

Review by Michael Beach
 
As the title and subtitle suggest, Michio Kaku considers the stuff of science fiction and considers them from science as we know it today. Taking the mantra that “the ‘impossible’ is relative” (Kaku, 2008, p. xi), he breaks the various sci-fi ideas into categories. Class I impossibilities “are technologies that are impossible today but that do not violate the known laws of physics” (Kaku, 2008, p. xvii). Class II impossibilities “are technologies that sit at the very edge of our understanding of the physical world” (Ibid.). Class III impossibilities “are technologies that violate the known laws of physics” (Ibid.).

Michio Kaku goes on to describe difficult scientific ideas in ways that a novice like me can understand. He looks at each technology, explains the sort of science involved, and the new technology or science that would have to be developed. For each technology he then makes an argument for which category each technology would belong to. I found the approach framed well and the arguments convincing. It’s a really interesting way to a non-scientist like me to get a glimpse into the world of scientific thought.
​

​Bibliography
Rumsfeld, Donald. 2018. When the Center Held: Gerald Ford and the Rescue of the American Presidency. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, New Delhi: Free Press.

Review by Michael Beach

As one might surmise by the title, this book is Donald Rumsfeld’s homage to Gerald Ford. When I first saw the title, being this was likely a political book, I assumed ‘the center’ was a reference to a centrist political position. That was an incorrect assumption. Gerald Ford played college football in Michigan in his younger days. His position was that of the center. This player hikes the ball to the quarterback, then holds the line of large opponents attempting to get past him to tackle the quarterback.

Rumsfeld recounts Ford’s lifetime of service in the military and in politics. He describes his calm demeaner and plain speaking that some took as weakness, but for Rumsfeld, political players in Ford’s day mistakenly underestimated him.

The culmination of the book, and Gerald Ford’s political career, was about his service as vice-president to Richard Nixon. Ford was not the first vice-president to Nixon. He replaced a scandal-ridden Spiro Agnew. This meant that Gerald Ford was not elected to the position. Nixon also made it clear to Ford that he was not his first pick to replace Agnew. After taking office, the Watergate scandal became widely known and led to Nixon’s resignation. Ford found himself moving from an unelected vice-president, to an unelected president.

One of his first acts was to pardon President Nixon. Rumsfeld recounts the Ford administration policies and the historical fallout. Then he reviews the election where Ford actually ran but lost to Jimmy Carter. Rumsfeld recounts likely reasons for Carter’s win. His obvious assumption is that Ford suffered from guilt by his association with Nixon.

Like any political history work, one should consider the perspective of the author who was a Ford administration insider. He also later served with President George W. Bush.  Despite some reflexive influence on the part of Rumsfeld, for those of us who remember the period, the book rings true. 

Bibliography
Rohde, Joy. 2013. Armed with Expertise: The Militarization of American Social Research During the Cold War. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press.
 
In this work, Joy Rohde begins discussing a relatively new tool in the military arsenal called the Human Terrain System (HTS). Essentially, HTS includes social scientists who are familiar with local social factors in war zones who advise in-field troops and commanders. Rohde begins discussing it’s use in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Another example of HTS researchers Rohde discusses are those “behind the front lines in the War on Terror” (Rohde 2013, 1). She notes how one of the goals of HTS participants is to encourage soldiers to “see the world through the eyes of the people affected” so perhaps they could somewhat “demilitarize the military” (Ibid.). As it turns out, many critics of HTS argue the opposite. This approach, some social scientists point out, is militarizing the researchers instead.

The military funded much of this research through the Special Operations Research Office (SORO) created by the Office of the Chief of Psychological Warfare. After setting up this tension and noting some of the major participants, Rohde goes on to offer a historical view of the roots of psychological warfare research dating back to the 1950s and 1960s during the height of the Cold War between the United States and Western allies in conflict with the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence.

Among other conclusions, Joy Rohde asserts that “much of the critical focus on contracting for the post-9/11 environment focuses on the dangers of privatization, not on those of militarization” (Rohde 2013, 155). Perhaps the same could be said about the military itself. Rohde notes that if it’s true that Americans are “devoted to their image of the nation as a global superpower” (Rohde 2013, 156), then militarization of social research will “last as long as Americans continue to measure their national greatness by their global might” (Ibid.).
​

Bibliography
Hawking, Stephen. 2017. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books.

Review by Michael Beach
 
Stephen Hawking is a well-known astrophysicist, so much so that a novice like me has heard of him. Yes, he was connected to the popular TV show The Big Bang Theory, but I had heard of him long before then. This book is a treatise on the best scientific thinking about the cosmos distilled into more palatable language for the average reader.

Each chapter tackles somewhat ticklish unresolved topics such as the latest descriptions of the universe, the relationship between space and time, the uncertainty principle, and the elementary particles and forces of nature. Whether discussing black holes, the origin of the universe, or worm hole travel, Hawking includes what ‘we’ humans think and what we don’t know. He peppers these heavy topics from well placed humor.

The original version of the book was published in 1988. This third version incorporates ‘new material’ including some short descriptions about the theoretical scientific contributions of Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton. For me the topics Hawking discusses are fascinating. His approach is thoughtful and clear.  
​

​Bibliography
O'Brian, Patrick. 1973. H.M.S. Surprise. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Review by Michael Beach 

This book is the third in the series written by Patrick O’Brian centered on the British naval officer Jack Aubrey and his friend and ship’s doctor, Stephen Maturin. The series is set during the Napoleonic Wars when British and French warships often battled. My first introduction to this series was through the moving Master and Commander starring Russell Crowe. A work friend of mine gifted me the first two novels and I decided to continue the series.

As one might expect, this story is a continuation from the other two which I have already written reviews on here https://bhaven.org/reviews/master-commander
and here https://bhaven.org/reviews/post-captain.

This point of the longer story begins with Aubrey temporarily in command of HMS Lively. He is assigned to escort duty. The crew is less practiced than he would have hoped, but he manages to use them to sneak ashore to a Spanish fort on the island of Minorca and rescue Stephen who is imprisoned there. They go on to engage French ships with victorious effect. The permanent commander returns, and Aubrey’s career is left adrift.

The middle of the book returns focus to his romance with Sophie Williams to whom he proposes marriage. She accepts, but her widowed mother is not supportive since he has a fair amount of debt and an uncertain naval future. Jack has his own internal conflicts on this problem and is always finding ways to dodge creditors. Jack’s accomplice Stephen has his own love entanglement in an on-again off-again affair with a widow Diana Villiers who is also friends with Sophie.

Eventually the book puts Jack back in charge of a ship HMS Surprise. It turns out to be the ship he had served on many years before as a young midshipman. He fixes it up and sails for India on assignment. There are a number of close calls with ocean storms, doldrums, sickness, and times of low provisions for the crew. The result is a battered ship and crew when they get to India. Jack not only fixes the ship and provisions it, but in the process makes many improvements to the hull and masts. While in India, Stephen meets up with his love interest, Diana Villiers. They have some intrigue and adventures in several parts of India. They agree to meet in Madeira on their way home after the ship’s tour there. Diana also agrees to encourage Sophie to join Jack there. Before heading home to England, there is a substantial battle between the Surprise along with some less experienced warships manned by sailors from India. They are escorting a large convoy of merchant ships and come under attack by a number of French navy ships. A battle ensues and the British are victorious. Jack is the main hero and as a result receives a sizeable reward, enough to pay off his creditors and marry Sophie.

After another batch of repairs to the Surprise resulting from the battle, they sail home stopping at Madeira as planned. Unfortunately for Stephen, his relationship with Diana is off-again. She left word that she has married a wealthy merchant and they have gone to America. Jack initially has no word from Sophie, but at last they come together and resume their romance. Sophie is sure her mother will accept Jack after his turn of fortune.

As with the other O’Brian books, the writing is very engaging and he clearly knows his nautical and naval language. The details can be a bit hard to follow during the heated battles, even for someone like me with some experience sailing, but the reader is not lost. This book had less emphasis on the romance than the second book had and more on battles and expeditions into India jungles. From that perspective the balance was better from my point of view. 

Bibliography
​Ottinger, Gwen. 2013. Refining Expertise: How Responsible Engineers Subvert Environmental Justice Challenges. New York. London: New York University Press.

Review by Michael Beach
 
In one way, Gwen Ottinger could be thought to be writing a form of exposé about how emissions from an oil refinery in Louisiana exposed a community to hazardous fumes and the (likely? potential?) harmful health effects. She shares that story in this work. As important as that story is, the book has a larger point. Ottinger reviews how what started as a public relations failure shifted. As refinery ownership changed, so too did the communications strategy. The refinery began to involve local citizens through a series of meetings, placing gas detection monitors around the town, and making some operational concessions. Over time, residents began to accept engineering data and explanations, even when accidental over-emission events happened.

Gwen Ottinger explores the idea of identity and influence. She looks at how experts at first relied on that identity to make definitive statements and expect people to trust them. As the messaging began to include technical information and logic in lay terms, residents could follow the thinking and were more accepting. Residents also began to change identity from antagonistic victims to informed supporters. The refining companies also financed improvements in the town itself. To Ottinger’s point, this shift in identity by both refinery personnel and local citizen advocates did not mean there were no negative health effects or risks. She argues that a shift in identity created a new form of discourse. Shifting narratives helped shift identifying self-definitions by the actors involved. For example, over time the refinery became a ‘moral company’ at least in the perception of those involved. As residents became more participating and more accepting of information their diminishing challenges transformed them into ‘good citizens’ living in ‘nice communities’. Granted, there were some actual changes to how the plant was operated, but how much change was enacted really?

For Gwen Ottinger, one can question motives linked to narratives. For example, did the company change because it became moral? Did the challenges by citizens cause introspection on the part of refinery leaders? Were resident attitude changes justified by more participation or information, or did their attitudes change unjustifiably? The links among language, narrative, discourse, identity and power are co-productive. All affect and are affected by social interaction. This case-study sheds light on one way that technical knowledge in particular helps shape these relationships.
​

BibliographyBerger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

Review by Michael Beach
 
The “core of the argument” (Berger and Luckmann 1966, v) as described by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman is to contrast several schools of thought related to how we humans understand ‘reality’. Specifically, they show the two primary issues as “society as objective reality” (section 2 of the book) and “society as subjective reality” (section 3 of the book). Another way to consider these two titles would be in the form of a question. Is society something that happens and sociology attempts to describe it, or is society something that results from attempts to describe it?

Although the authors spend some time discussing some ways ‘reality’ can be thought of, they don’t really attempt to create their own definition. They are focused more on social process in either describing or defining how sociological forces interact.

Berger and Luckmann conclude that knowledge is a primary sociological force. “We have tried to present a general and systematic account of the role of knowledge in society” (Berger and Luckmann 1966, 185). Not seeking to answer all the questions, they acknowledge a primary goal is to encourage more academic exploration. “Of one thing we are confident. A redefinition of the problems and tasks of the sociology of knowledge was long overdue” (Ibid.).

Their work here attempts to link ‘objectification’, ‘institutionalization’ and ‘legitimation’. They don’t seem to make an argument that societal definition is objectifiable, rather they state that the depiction of objective definition leads to creation of institutional forms of knowledge. They likewise make the case that knowledge considered as institutional is also accepted as legitimate. The other form of that same equation is also arguable. As knowledge becomes more widely accepted as legitimate, such knowledge becomes institutional, even if not codified in some formal organized institution.
​

Bibliography
​Stark, Peter. 2018. Young Washington: How Wilderness and War Forged America's Founding Father. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Review by Michael Beach

Like so many who interest themselves in the Revolutionary War period of United States history, I find biographies on the ‘founding fathers’ fascinating. Washington may be considered the quintessential example. In this work, Peter Stark takes the reader through George Washington’s immediate ancestry and his own childhood. The work then transitions through his colonial experiences, his love interests, and his decision to embark on a military career.

In his early military experiences, Stark makes an argument for Washington’s role in reigniting war between England and France. In what is called either The Seven Years War or The French and Indian War, Washington does learn some harsh lessons and is directly involved in a number of battles. Aside from his hardening as a wartime leader, Washington is keenly interested in becoming an officer in the regular British army. Time and again he is snubbed, along with all American militia. When the war ended, he resigned in frustration and begins his career as a plantation owner. This snubbing comes back to haunt the British years later when the future General Washington directly confronts some of his previous peers and superiors as part of the revolution. This particular work does not take us beyond his resignation and settling into Mount Vernon.

Stark shares excerpts of correspondences to, from, and about Washington that give insight into his early mistakes and how he begins to mature. Stark also shares his romantic interest in a married member of the Fairfax family. Eventually he realizes the pointlessness of the pursuit and his relationship with Martha comes into play. Peter Stark makes it clear that it is not so clear about George’s romantic inclinations toward Martha. His motivation may have been as much financial and cultural as romantic. In either case, the two become an early ‘power couple’.

Peter Stark writes this history in an engaging format that keeps the story moving along. I personally take all histories with a grain of salt, but Stark includes a significant number of contemporary sources, including Washington’s own writings. The content rings true and is probably as close to reality as is possible. 
​

​Bibliography
Kleinman, Daniel Lee, ed. 2000. Science, Technology, & Democracy. New York: State University of New York Press.

Review by Michael Beach
 
Like so many of the books I’ve reviewed as part of my studies in the field of Science, Technology, and Society (STS), this book is a compendium of chapters written as interdependent topics. Daniel Kleinman, as the editor, wrote the introduction and closing chapter. The title of his contribution as the final chapter is Democratizations of Science and Technology. This title hints at the idea that democracy has more than one meaning hence each version of democracy differently influences and is influenced by a given community’s relationship with science and tech.

Some of the chapters are a form of mini case study. For example, there is a chapter about AIDS treatment activism. Another looks at sustainable farming networks, where knowledge sharing among farmers and agriculturalists impact how food begins in our collective food chain. Several chapters consider actor roles such as experts, practitioners, and consumers. These chapters tend to examine how much influence each group has, or how much they are willing to rely on the insights of the other groups. There are a few more generalized philosophical chapters such as how the nuclear family is defined and how that influences technology acceptance. There is a review of federal science and 'human well-being’. Perhaps the most academic chapter is by Sandra Harding. She is a well-known author in STS and generally examines feminist thought. In this section she asks the question how much scientific philosophy should steer or be steered by democratic ideals.

Kleinman’s final chapter is a consideration of public policy and motivation. He concludes, “Scientific, professional, and corporate groups have a strong vested interest in seeing that innovations go forward, and they typically have substantial financial, organizational, and technical resources to invest in pursuing those interests. Most public groups, by contrast, as well as society as a whole, have a much less direct stake in the outcome of given policy choices, and usually can draw on only limited economic and institutional resources” (Kleinman 2000, 162). This is an interesting assertion. Even if ‘the public’ has limited input to direct policy deliberation, they ultimate are consumers (or non-consumers) of whatever technology results. The public votes with its money and its votes. As you might note, these topics are tricky. Any strong stand on one point or another makes for argumentative fodder. 
​