some bootlegs i like bc this post didnt get enough attention the first time imo:
1999-01-27 - Cat's Cradle: letter from a motel. you're in maya. poltergeist. 02-75. merle haggard cover. whats better than this.
2013-06-14 - Taft Theatre Ballroom: ALPHA CHUM GATHERER SUPREMACY!! also this is a rly fun performance of commandante and the crowds rly into it. thats what this is all about imo. he does the boys are back in town for the encore
2014-06-14 and 2014-06-15 - Bottom of the Hill: these two 2014 shows in san francisco where jd played all of transmissions to horace and taboo vi: the homecoming, respectively. rly recommend the taboo vi one its a great set
1997-03-xx - NYU: i just think this one is fun. audio quality isnt great but the set list doesnt miss imo!! chanson du bon chose + sinaloan milk snake song + one of my fav performances of minnesota
2016-10-29 - Hi-Dive: initially thought this was a different hi dive show with a really good performance of carmen cicero but i still really like this set. spilling towards alpha. tulsa imperative. grateful dead cover. also p sure i met the guy who recorded this bootleg at a show a few years ago and he was really nice so. shoutouts.
2009-03-27: The Music Hall of the Society for Ethical Culture: nyctaper usually doesnt record bad sets honestly but i like this one a lot its got great deep cuts. un reve plus long que la nuit. hawaiian feeling. from tg&y. john vanderslice is here,
anyways imo everyone should go to the mountain goats wiki pages for their favorite deep cuts and just like . look through the live shows they were played at until u find one with a recorded setlist u like! its a good time! been doing it a lot lately bc i have mental illness and theyre not touring the west coast this spring
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
( consider donating to the gofundme for the family of adriana smith. she was taken off life support one year ago today. may she rest in peace, and i hope her family receives the support they so desperately need for the heartbreak and medical bills they've been unjustly forced to bear. )
Title: The Pipe of Freedom
Artist: Thomas Stuart Smith (Scottish, 1815-1869)
Date: 1869
Genre: portraiture, genre art
Medium: oil on canvas
Dimensions: 106.8 cm (42 in) high x 78.7 cm (30.9 in) wide
Location: Stirling Smith Museum and Art Gallery, Stirling, Scotland, UK
Thomas Stuart Smith painted this striking portrait to celebrate the abolition of slavery in both the UK and the US. The man portrayed is enjoying a pipe at his leisure, symbolizing his freedom from enforced labor. Behind him, a yellow notice announcing a slave auction has been partially covered up by a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Something big happens. Something bigger than you. My mother marches at a student protest in 1984, wearing suede boots, the sun rising over the mountain. Or, seventy years earlier, Kafka wakes up and learns that Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. Sunlight moves through the water glass on the nightstand. God comes down to Moses and tells him to refuse to golden calf, to take his children out of Egypt. My great-great-grand-father leaves his tribe on the Iranian border and settles in Afghanistan and says the Shahada. A whistleblower sits in a courtroom, his gaze turned towards a blue book that contains the sentence that will define his fate. Trials are held. The world spins. We send rockets into space, robots that take pictures of planets we have never been to. We write down the law, we amend it, and we define who is good, who bad. Documents are classified, hidden for years. Exile. War. Terrorism. A girl brushes her hair and plants a bomb in a café in Algeria. I felt no regrets. I did it for my people, she will say from her prison cell. Apokalypsis, which means revelation: the bride removing the veil, turning her face in the direction of the grainy wind. Sand fluttering in her eyes. You watch the news; everything you feared is true: They hate us. You belong, you understand, to the others. You think of Celan’s “Todesfuge,” the image of graves in the sky. You think of Palestine. And then, as always, there is loneliness. A loneliness as old as your childhood.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
recently saw ppl discuss whether they put their medicines in a kitchen cabinet or a bathroom cabinet and i was shocked by the fact that many ppl said kitchen cabinet. so now i need you to reblog this and say where you keep yours
i'm never going to stop feeling mad and betrayed about how level 1/"low support needs" autistics have become the face of autism and gleefully use their privilege over l2/3s to talk over us, pretend we don't exist, and use the slur used to hurt US while pretending it's their word to say. while level 2-3 and "high support needs" autistics have been so erased that a lot of people don't remember we exist anymore and blame us for our symptoms. i've never met a level 2 or 3 autistic who wanted to say the r word. everyone i know like me hates it because it hurts. level 1s can't accept that there are people who are really more disabled by their autism than them TO THE POINT WHERE THEY KEEP SAYING HOW AUTISM ISNT A DISABILITY it's so frustrating!!!! aspie supremacy is a disease. support ppl with high support needs
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
real talk tho ive seen ppl talk abt how long hair on men isn't intrinsically feminine & assuming so is racist can we get the same convo going for Black women w short hair can we start talking abt how short hair isn't intrinsically masculine or is that a step too far
Oregon DOC Appears to Have Disappeared Portland Protester Malik Muhammad
"The Oregon Department of Corrections appears to have effectively disappeared Malik Muhammad, a Black Palestinian anarchist and antifascist prisoner serving one of the longest sentences handed to a protester after the 2020 George Floyd uprising."
hello! im just finishing up my read of structures of scientific revolutions, which has genuinely been very useful and shifted my understanding of science in a way being around people doing scientific research all day really didn't! i don't have a liberal arts education so i would love to get a sense of (a) what else of the philosophy / history of science canon is worth reading in the original (b) standard review papers or introductory textbooks and (c) critiques of the canon. i understand this is a big ask ofc, so feel free to point me to good depts / syllabi from good courses. thanks :)
yessss such a fun question >:) so, the thing that was so great about 'the structure of scientific revolutions', which i'm sure you've picked up on, is that kuhn pushed historians and philosophers of science to challenge the positivist model of science as a linearly progressive search to 'accumulate knowledge'. the idea of a 'paradigm shift' was itself a paradigm shift at the time; it was an early example of a language for talking about radical change in science without giving into the assumption that change necessarily = 'progress' (defined by national interests, mathematisation, and so forth). this is still an approach that's foundational to history and philosophy of science; it's now taken as so axiomatic that few academics even bother to gloss or defend it in monographs (which raises its own issue with public communication, lol).
where kuhn falls apart more (and this was typical for a philosopher of his era, training, and academic milieu) is in the fact that he never developed any kind of rigorous sociological analysis of science (despite alluding to such a thing being necessary) and you probably also noticed that he makes a few major leaps that indicate he's not fully committed to thinking through the relationship between science and politics. so for example, we might ask, can a paradigm shift ever occur for a reason other than a discovered 'anomaly' that the previous paradigm can't account for? for instance, how do political investments in science and scientific theories affect what's accepted as 'normal science' in a kuhnian sense? are there historical or present cases where a paradigm didn't change even though it persistently failed to explain certain empirical observations or data? what about the opposite, where a paradigm did change, but it wasn't necessarily or exclusively because the new paradigm was a 'better' explanation scientifically? how do we determine what makes an explanation 'better', anyway, especially given that kuhn himself was very much invested in moving beyond the naïve realist position? and on the more sociological side, we can raise issues like: say you're a scientist and you legitimately have discovered an 'anomaly'. how do you communicate that to other scientists? what mechanisms of knowledge production and publication enable you to circulate that information and to be taken seriously? what modes of communication must you use and what credentials or interpersonal connections must you have? what factors cause theories and discoveries to be taken more or less seriously, or adopted more or less quickly, besides just their 'scientific utility' (again, assuming we can even define such a thing)?
again, this is not to shit on kuhn, but to point out that both history and philosophy of science have had a lot of avenues to explore since his work. note that there are a few major disciplinary distinctions here, each with many sub-schools of thought. a 'science and technology studies' or STS program tends to be a mix of sociological and philosophical analysis of science, often with an emphasis on 'technoscience' and much less on historical analysis. a philosophy of science department will be anchored more firmly in the philosophical approach, so you'll find a lot of methodological critique, and a lot of scholarship that seeks to tackle current aporias in science using various philosophical frameworks. a history of science program is fundamentally just a sub-discipline of history, and scholarship in this area asks about the development of science over time, how various forms of thinking came into and out of favour, and so forth. often a department will do both history and philosophy of science (HPS). historians of medicine, technology, and mathematics will sometimes (for arcane scholastic reasons varying by field, training, and country) be anchored in departments of medicine / technology / mathematics, rather than with other faculty of histsci / HPS. but, increasingly in the anglosphere you'll see departments that cover history of science, technology, and mathematics (HSTM) together. obviously, all of these distinctions say more about professional qualifications and university bureaucracy than they do about the actual subject matter; in actuality, a good history of science should virtually always include attention to some philosophical and sociological dimensions, and vice versa.
anyway—reading recs:
there are two general reference texts i would recommend here if you just want to get some compilations of major / 'canonical' works in this field. both are edited volumes, so you can skip around in them as much as you want. both are also very limited in focus to, again, a very particular 'western canon' defined largely by trends in anglo academia over the past half-century or so.
philosophy of science: the central issues (1998 [2013], ed. martin curd & j. a. cover). this is an anthology of older readings in philsci. it's a good introduction to many of the methodological questions and problems that the field has grown around; most of these readings have little to no historical grounding and aren't pretending otherwise.
the cambridge history of science (8 vols., 2008–2020, gen. eds. david c. lindberg & ron numbers). no one reads this entire set because it's long as shit. however, each volume has its own temporal / topical focus, and the essays function as a crash-course in historical methodology in addition to whatever value you derive from the case studies in their own right. i like these vols much more than the curd & cover, but if you really want to dig into the philosophical issues and not the histories, curd & cover might be more fun.
besides those, here are some readings in histsci / philsci that i'd recommend if you're interested. for consistency i ordered these by publication date, but bolded a few i would recommend as actual starting points lol. again some of these focus on specific historical cases, but are also useful imo methodologically, regardless of how much you care about the specific topic being discussed.
Robert M. Young. 1969. "Malthus and the Evolutionists: The Common Context of Biological and Social Theory." Past & Present 43: 109–145.
David Bloor. 1976 [1991]. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (here is a really useful extract that covers the main points of this text).
Ian Hacking. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steven Shapin. 1988. “Understanding the Merton Thesis.” Isis 79 (4): 594–605.
Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. 1989. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mario Biagioli. 1993. Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bruno Latour. 1993. The Pasteurization of France. Translated by Alan Sheridan and John Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Margaret W. Rossiter. 1993. “The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.” Social Studies of Science 23 (2): 325–41.
Andrew Pickering. 1995. The Mangle of Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Porter, Theodore M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press, 1996.
Peter Galison. 1997. “Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief.” In The Science Studies Reader, edited by Mario Biagioli, 137–60. New York: Routledge.
Crosbie Smith. 1998. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chambers, David Wade, and Richard Gillespie. “Locality in the History of Science: Colonial Science, Technoscience, and Indigenous Knowledge.” Osiris 15 (2000): 221–40.
Kuriyama, Shigehisa. The Expressiveness of the Body and the Divergence of Greek and Chinese Medicine. Zone Books, 2002.
Timothy Mitchell. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
James A. Secord. 2003. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Sheila Jasanoff. 2006. “Biotechnology and Empire: The Global Power of Seeds and Science.” Osiris 21 (1): 273–92.
Murphy, Michelle. Sick Building Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty: Environmental Politics, Technoscience, and Women Workers. Duke University Press, 2006.
Kapil Raj. 2007. Relocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650–1900. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schiebinger, Londa L. Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World. Harvard University Press, 2007.
Galison, Peter. “Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of Science.” Isis 99, no. 1 (2008): 111–24.
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. Objectivity. Zone Books, 2010.
Dipesh Chakrabarty. 2011. “The Muddle of Modernity.” American Historical Review 116 (3): 663–75.
Forman, Paul. “On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production and Curation: Modernity Entailed Disciplinarity, Postmodernity Entails Antidisciplinarity.” Osiris 27, no. 1 (2012): 56–97.
Ashworth, William J. 2014. "The British Industrial Revolution and the the Ideological Revolution: Science, Neoliberalism, and History." History of Science 52 (2): 178–199.
Mavhunga, Clapperton. 2014. Transient Workspaces: Technologies of Everyday Innovation in Zimbabwe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynn Nyhart. 2016. “Historiography of the History of Science.” In A Companion to the History of Science, edited by Bernard Lightman, 7–22. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Rana Hogarth. 2017. Medicalizing Blackness: Making Racial Difference in the Atlantic World, 1780–1840. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Suman Seth. 2018. Difference and Disease: Medicine, Race, and the Eighteenth-Century British Empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Aro Velmet. 2020. Pasteur's Empire: Bacteriology and Politics in France, its Colonies, and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
i would also say, as a general rule, these books are generally all so well-known that there are very good book reviews and review essays on them, which you can find through jstor / your library's database. these can be invaluable both because your reading list would otherwise just mushroom out forever, and because a good review can help you decide whether you even need / want to sit down with the book itself in the first place. literally zero shame in reading an academic text secondhand via reviews.
This is a great fuckin post, and I am looking forward to getting into some of these, esp the Chambers and Gillespie paper. The Mitchell book is something I keep telling people to read (esp those influnced by James C Scott's Seeing LIke a State).
Adding some things that deepened my appreciation of Kuhn, though I am no social scientist:
T J Pinch's "Kuhn: The Conservative and Radical Interpretations" clarified to me how his conservative politics were interrelated with many of the problems outlined in OP.
The second chapter of J Moufawad-Paul's Continuity and Rupture illuminates some important dynamics of dogmatism and revisionism that I've seen even in both my professional and political lives. (In general there is a throughline in this book about what paradigm shifts look like in the context of revolutionary ideology.)
Feyerabend's Against Method, especially from the perspective outlined in "Paul Feyerabend and the Dialectical Character of Quantum Mechanics: A Lesson in Philosophical Dadaism" by Rory Kent
Emily Martin's "The Egg and the Sperm" is a nice example of how a paradigm can be propped up because of social structure.
And relatedly, Christine Helliwell's "It's Only a Penis" explores an example how worldviews are concretely shaped by material conditions (are male and female privates different? or are they only in different places? This tribe's answers will surprise you).
And this single webpage made me re-evaluate my ideas about the nature of scientific truth. Hasok Chang's other work is definitely in my reading list.
condola rashad as joan of arc i am free on sunday at 5 im just letting you know that i would be available on sunday at 5 if someone asked me to dinner on sunday at 5
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
