ABSTRACT
Agency is usually considered a uniquely human attribute, but the fundamental motivation for thinking this way lies in our desire to somehow stand apart from nature in some way. Without getting too deep into the nature/culture distinction, there is nonetheless value in this blurring the lines. Seen over different timescales than what we are typically used to, even rivers (and other complex systems) respond to human intervention in ways that are non-deterministic. In making things, we similarly make the mistake of assuming that artefacts are the outcome of our abstract ideas impressing themselves onto pliant materials. Materials respond, in ways that can defy our established understanding. The point of these ideas is not to invite us to give up our attempts at control and prediction of nature, but rather for us to question the amount of certainty we have about our knowledge. Scientific knowledge is obtained not from a straightforward process of ‘looking for evidence’ as if searching for wild mushrooms. Instead, we ‘persuade’ nature through a back-and-forth process as if in a dance where each partner takes turns to lead. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instruction would do better if it were to communicate the ways in which our knowledge is limited and requires a careful, ‘by feel’, and probabilistic approach. Makerspaces are ideal spaces for this kind of learning, but only if we decide so.
