![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I did a serious work-over of the citations. The prior-used Template:Sfn method creates two entries for citations that are only used once (which was most of them). Changing the style to the more commonly used < ref > method allowed me to identify citations that weren't used (which got moved to External links section), which were duplicated in refs and ext links (deleted one), and disclosed some other errors that needed fixing. I only did "technical" work such as citation maintenance and checking a few of the citations for verification. I did not check all. I agree with the hatnotes: essay-like, POV and Overlinked. Normal Op ( talk) 22:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Chrisahn. Thank you for cleaning up the article to a great extent. That was a long-pending task. However, I see that several sourced claims have been removed in the clean-up process. For example, the complex existing from early on and morphing into the current form since 1945 and the mention about Upton Sinclair and Charles Patterson are from the very source (Sorenson, 2014) although I had earlier additionally included the Sinclair and Patterson's books as sources as well. I'm okay with the removal of these books as sources (for we already have a secondary sourceâSorenson). However, I'm only surprised with the removal of the claims themselves. Can you reason these? I feel these are pushing the already "fringe" concept to the edge of the periphery. Thank you. Rasnaboy ( talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from the Twine paper that show quite clearly why the term animal-industrial complex is problematic: It is not clearly defined, inherently political instead of scientific, and irrelevant. (Emphasis and interpretation added by me.)
The paper aims to 'reveal' the 'animal-industrial complex' in two senses. Firstly by returning to Noskeâs concept the aim is to tease out its original perceptive dimensions but also to add further rigour so that it is less of a rhetorical term but actually begins to be embodied by a delineated set of actors, relations and usable definitions. Whilst a hyperbolic sense of the concept has not been without use in the sense of a shared discourse between those politically interested in challenging its power; working toward, in this paper, a more refined definition can provide the critical animal studies research agenda much more focus, shape and coherence. Moreover, this can be valuable for understanding the context of the complex within broader relations of political economy, for a better appreciation of intersectionality and in allowing the concept to do better political work for those engaged in its critique.
ââRichard Twine, "Revealing the 'Animal-Industrial Complex' â A Concept & Method for Critical Animal Studies?", Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1 (2012), p. 14
In short: It's largely a rhetorical and political device without a usable definition.
It has not been used very much since in academic work but seems to have at least in a limited sense entered critical discourse around human-animal relations.
ââibid., p 15
In other words, the term animal-industrial complex isn't relevant â not even for those who share the political views of Noske and Twine.
Twine quotes Noske:
...the "main impetus behind modern animal production comes from monopolistically inclined financial interests rather than from farmers, consumers or workers here or in the Third World."
ââibid., p 15
If we replace animal production by any other kind of production, it becomes obvious that this isn't much more than a conspiracy theory: the main impetus behind modern book production comes from monopolistically inclined financial interests rather than from writers, readers or workers here or in the Third World.
Twine almost admits this in a paragraph starting with the following sentence:
It is worth pointing to a note of caution toward the discourse of the complex in the sense that it may suggest something akin to a conspiracy theory.
ââibid., p 20
Twine about Noske:
...nowhere does she offer a clear working definition of the 'animal-industrial complex' or a schematic to show what it might comprise...
ââibid., p 16
Again: no usable definition.
Twine later offers this "definition" (italics in original):
...an actual definition ought to be a collective work-in-progress amongst the CAS community. Here I offer an initial basic and succinct definition of the A-IC as a partly opaque and multiple set of networks and relationships between the corporate (agricultural) sector, governments, and public and private science. With economic, cultural, social and affective dimensions it encompasses an extensive range of practices, technologies, images, identities and markets.
ââibid., p 23
Extremely vague. How long has the A-IC existed? Which groups and companies are part of it? Am I part of it if I have a cat? How about the veterinarian who treats my cat? How about a farmer who keeps a couple of cows and chickens? Did the first domesticated dogs and goats belong to the animal-industrial complex? And so on. I have no idea how to answer these questions, and I don't think Twine does either.
Whilst acknowledging that methods are in an important sense performative (Law, 2004: 56), in that they partly construct the reality they purport to present, social research here is notable for in the case of the A-IC they make a reality that previously, in a sense for many people, due to hegemonic affective investments in veiling and denial, did not in fact exist.
ââibid., p 33
Again: a political term based on a conspiracy theory, coined to help "construct" or "reveal" a reality that has so far been been "veiled" by a nebulous "hegemony".
-- Chrisahn ( talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Where animal exploitation had been rationalized as an inescapable path toward desirable solutions, technological innovations dissolve some of those aggregations and reduce the seeming inevitability of an AIC. Can this dynamic be explored in this or in another article (to which it could be linked)? Some 'technological innovations' result in more cost-effective strategies less exploitation of animals as models for knowledge production or raw resources for some other industrialized products (altering the 'business cases for using them in such ways). MaynardClark ( talk) 11:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the concept animalâindustrial complex is pseudoscience: it claims to be scientific (and its proponents use jargon that sounds scientific), but one can't derive testable predictions from it. See Science#Scientific method: "[A] hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as " Occam's Razor") ... This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation." I can't see how the idea of animalâindustrial complex could be falsified, or tested at all. It would help support the claim that the idea is a scientific concept if someone could find reliable sources that show how to derive predictions from it that one couldn't derive with simpler, more common concepts. -- Chrisahn ( talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I did a serious work-over of the citations. The prior-used Template:Sfn method creates two entries for citations that are only used once (which was most of them). Changing the style to the more commonly used < ref > method allowed me to identify citations that weren't used (which got moved to External links section), which were duplicated in refs and ext links (deleted one), and disclosed some other errors that needed fixing. I only did "technical" work such as citation maintenance and checking a few of the citations for verification. I did not check all. I agree with the hatnotes: essay-like, POV and Overlinked. Normal Op ( talk) 22:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Chrisahn. Thank you for cleaning up the article to a great extent. That was a long-pending task. However, I see that several sourced claims have been removed in the clean-up process. For example, the complex existing from early on and morphing into the current form since 1945 and the mention about Upton Sinclair and Charles Patterson are from the very source (Sorenson, 2014) although I had earlier additionally included the Sinclair and Patterson's books as sources as well. I'm okay with the removal of these books as sources (for we already have a secondary sourceâSorenson). However, I'm only surprised with the removal of the claims themselves. Can you reason these? I feel these are pushing the already "fringe" concept to the edge of the periphery. Thank you. Rasnaboy ( talk) 04:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from the Twine paper that show quite clearly why the term animal-industrial complex is problematic: It is not clearly defined, inherently political instead of scientific, and irrelevant. (Emphasis and interpretation added by me.)
The paper aims to 'reveal' the 'animal-industrial complex' in two senses. Firstly by returning to Noskeâs concept the aim is to tease out its original perceptive dimensions but also to add further rigour so that it is less of a rhetorical term but actually begins to be embodied by a delineated set of actors, relations and usable definitions. Whilst a hyperbolic sense of the concept has not been without use in the sense of a shared discourse between those politically interested in challenging its power; working toward, in this paper, a more refined definition can provide the critical animal studies research agenda much more focus, shape and coherence. Moreover, this can be valuable for understanding the context of the complex within broader relations of political economy, for a better appreciation of intersectionality and in allowing the concept to do better political work for those engaged in its critique.
ââRichard Twine, "Revealing the 'Animal-Industrial Complex' â A Concept & Method for Critical Animal Studies?", Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 10, Issue 1 (2012), p. 14
In short: It's largely a rhetorical and political device without a usable definition.
It has not been used very much since in academic work but seems to have at least in a limited sense entered critical discourse around human-animal relations.
ââibid., p 15
In other words, the term animal-industrial complex isn't relevant â not even for those who share the political views of Noske and Twine.
Twine quotes Noske:
...the "main impetus behind modern animal production comes from monopolistically inclined financial interests rather than from farmers, consumers or workers here or in the Third World."
ââibid., p 15
If we replace animal production by any other kind of production, it becomes obvious that this isn't much more than a conspiracy theory: the main impetus behind modern book production comes from monopolistically inclined financial interests rather than from writers, readers or workers here or in the Third World.
Twine almost admits this in a paragraph starting with the following sentence:
It is worth pointing to a note of caution toward the discourse of the complex in the sense that it may suggest something akin to a conspiracy theory.
ââibid., p 20
Twine about Noske:
...nowhere does she offer a clear working definition of the 'animal-industrial complex' or a schematic to show what it might comprise...
ââibid., p 16
Again: no usable definition.
Twine later offers this "definition" (italics in original):
...an actual definition ought to be a collective work-in-progress amongst the CAS community. Here I offer an initial basic and succinct definition of the A-IC as a partly opaque and multiple set of networks and relationships between the corporate (agricultural) sector, governments, and public and private science. With economic, cultural, social and affective dimensions it encompasses an extensive range of practices, technologies, images, identities and markets.
ââibid., p 23
Extremely vague. How long has the A-IC existed? Which groups and companies are part of it? Am I part of it if I have a cat? How about the veterinarian who treats my cat? How about a farmer who keeps a couple of cows and chickens? Did the first domesticated dogs and goats belong to the animal-industrial complex? And so on. I have no idea how to answer these questions, and I don't think Twine does either.
Whilst acknowledging that methods are in an important sense performative (Law, 2004: 56), in that they partly construct the reality they purport to present, social research here is notable for in the case of the A-IC they make a reality that previously, in a sense for many people, due to hegemonic affective investments in veiling and denial, did not in fact exist.
ââibid., p 33
Again: a political term based on a conspiracy theory, coined to help "construct" or "reveal" a reality that has so far been been "veiled" by a nebulous "hegemony".
-- Chrisahn ( talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Where animal exploitation had been rationalized as an inescapable path toward desirable solutions, technological innovations dissolve some of those aggregations and reduce the seeming inevitability of an AIC. Can this dynamic be explored in this or in another article (to which it could be linked)? Some 'technological innovations' result in more cost-effective strategies less exploitation of animals as models for knowledge production or raw resources for some other industrialized products (altering the 'business cases for using them in such ways). MaynardClark ( talk) 11:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the concept animalâindustrial complex is pseudoscience: it claims to be scientific (and its proponents use jargon that sounds scientific), but one can't derive testable predictions from it. See Science#Scientific method: "[A] hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as " Occam's Razor") ... This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation." I can't see how the idea of animalâindustrial complex could be falsified, or tested at all. It would help support the claim that the idea is a scientific concept if someone could find reliable sources that show how to derive predictions from it that one couldn't derive with simpler, more common concepts. -- Chrisahn ( talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)