Karen Barad who is a constructivist is defending her point of view concerning the construction of scientific knowledge. Within the philosophy of sciences, there is a debate concerning if science is constructive empiricism (anti-realism) or not, between the pro-constructive(anti-realism) and the scientific realism. The scientific realism gives us theories that are true in all over the world, it is a true story of the world. In contrast, the constructive empiricist states that the science theories involve only the observable aspects of the world (and not the unobservable), so the scientific realism is based only on belief that it is true all over the world, on belief that it is empirically adequate: according to Karen, the fact that scientific knowledge is constructed, doesn’t mean that science doesn’t work and the fact that science works doesn’t mean that we understand the non observable facts about life and nature. She also explains that empirical adequacy is the start point of constructivism and not the end point(like for the scientist realism) and it is not an argument to say that the scientific realism is right, it is not the proof of realism.
In her introductory chapter, Karen Barad is also criticizing the overall approach of representationalism that represents the things in a symbolic and metaphysic way without being based on the material things that are scientifically proven. The critic of the representationalism is explained by Hacking who took this subject by focusing on the scientific experience of things rather than their symbolic representation. However, the objects are not only defined by their scientific side which leads to the phenomenology which is based not only on a real representation of things but also on their intrinsic existence, in other words the meaning in itself. A piece of art makes a clearance on a universality in itself, it is not a pure symbolic representation nor a laboratory science but a sort of reality that tends toward universality in itself. This is the existential phenomenology. Karen focuses also on the importance of ontology which is defined as the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence… Her point is to include more ontological reflections and a deeper understanding of the ontological dimensions of scientific practice: understand the technologies by which nature and culture interact. (Science theories cannot alone be capable of providing reliable and understandable access to the ontology of the world.) Liberal, social, political, religious theories and scientific theories are all a sort of representation but are not real representation pushes by individuals who created them by focusing on power, pleasure and ego.(these are sort of illusions) what is needed is a real representation, a representation that represents the universe. Gender, race, sexuality, and other social variables are also created by the need of power. Karen suggests a new representationalist form of government who offers a new way on how to understand power. She insists that what is needed if a radical rethinking of the nature of identity. The differences between us are created by mindsets and way of seeing yourself and the others. For example, the most emphasizing difference is gender, which is defined by body type but also by different mindset towards power. This was the first sign of a representation. Their was a belief that early, prehuman beings were at once male and female, or the belief that uninitiated children have the traits of both gender. However, even though we are all the same at the end, the species has to accept who they are and represent it. It is a sort of attraction that works on mind and body who is creating creating those differences which appear to us as a reality and all we can do is to go beyond them and work on the mindsets that each one possess or maybe have an united or combined mindset . Reality is an internal product of human consciousness.
Seamless views 