Stumbling around last night in a data rich and culturally complex little scene from the late 17th century I can see it’s not moving properly and I can’t put it into words.
Looking at some of the cultural processes and politics that surround the investigation of second sight in the late 17th century.
I don’t think the methods in this period can be strictly termed what we know to be science but it is an experimental proccesses using empirical methods.
It’s not the methods that concern me here, I am not constructing an argument that seeks to demonstrate the laws of gravity do not exist. It’s not a method issue. Pre- science proccess issue. I think its an Eskimo issue, or a not being an Eskimo issue; I do not have enough discriptive words for snow.
As my definitions of what science are fixed in my head I ask my son if he could define what science is.
The cogs in his mind grind away and struggle. He can’t come to an answer. Then he suggests that science is finding out “stuff we do not know.”
You have an issue you ask an expert. It’s “the stuff we do not know”, part I am finding difficult, ‘the predictive sense of the subject.’
The processes of classification is a cultural one, the objects drawn from life become narrative vehicles, detailing this social form of identification.
Its sense of the future. Until something better comes along refer to this as a mind altering substance.
Early stage processes of identification and classification. Its messy, data rich as there are lots of different objects in the space which look quite indistinct from each other.