How do Nietzsche and Haraway critique the concept of scientific knowledge and its pursuit of objectivity? How do they use the ideas of "the god-trick" and "pride" to explain the faults in scientific discoveries?
In Nietzsche’s, “On the Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” Nietzsche explains his attitude towards human scientific knowledge with great skepticism, even alluding to humans as “the most arrogant and mendacious” creations (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 7). This same sort of criticism is brought up in the concept of “the god-trick” in Haraway’s, “Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Haraway explains this concept as an illusion within which humans compare their own knowledge to the idea of infinite knowledge to that of a god. This sort of intellectual superiority has been a long-standing concept in human history as we have progressed in scientific thought. Described initially in Haraway’s writing, “the god-trick” remerges in many ideas Nietzsche exemplifies this through various metaphors and explanations of biases through perceptions.
This idea of the “the god-trick” and its qualities of knowing all, stem from humans and their rigid minds, being able to grasp only at what is tangible in their own minds, consequently shutting out other perspectives. Humans approach scientific discovery with a biased view, through their own one-sided viewpoint, and through no fault of their own make scientific discoveries which come from their own observations. But it isn't at this point where human faults are exemplified, Nietzsche argues, rather when scientific discovery is built upon these so-called
 “scientific truths.” It is at this point in time where in a moment notice the concept of science could “swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff” because of the very construct of scientific advancement based on falsities (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 7). Yet, given the knowledge of how fallible so many human discoveries have the potential to be, we still hold on to the idea of superior credibility which can be challenged by no force in our world, in essence, what Haraway refers to. In her idea of the “the god-trick,” Haraway advocates for a different way we approach observations through a different approach to objectivity. In separating ourselves from the almost seemingly personal obligation of being able to understand anything and everything and accepting the complexities of science we are able to remove the idea of false compromise on scientific truths to make up for our lack of understanding.
A fundamental idea that is exemplified in Nietzsche’s writing, is the idea of pride. Pride is a large component of human behavior and many actions are justified. The concept of pride can even be seen as an answer to the implied questions of where the root of the “god-trick” is derived from. From the beginning of time, it can be observed that we humans have had an itch for the idea of conquering. An itch to conquer societies, cultures, land, or even something as simple as higher socioeconomic status. It's quite simply in our blood and has been present for generations of humans. Furthering Haraway’s argument, Nietzsche presents the idea of how being prideful in the depth of our “knowledgeable” we are “blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men'' exemplifying how pride can produce scientific thought that provides answers just for the sake of answering questions that in reality are faulty (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 7). As a result of this, a curtain of deception is created in which humans have assisted in the creation

of their lies which to them have been converted into truth. Scientific discovery from this point on leads to “truth” being built upon from lies.
Turning a blind eye is a large theme within the idea of “the god-trick” and is iterated upon in Nietzsche’s description of the “leaf.” The leaf is a broad example of this created by “disregarding... differences and forgetting distinguishing aspects” (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 24). What is described here is that humans cannot label an "essential quality" for anything they describe. In essence, it is understood that there are many different types of leaves but we are not able to explain the explicit differences among them and in doing so what arises is a lack of “truth'' with the leaf. The fault lies in the generalization of the leaf and applying this generalization to other contexts is where the fault lies, which is exactly what Haraway addresses in her “god-trick” illusion. The very definition of “the god-trick” includes generalizing our own knowledge to compensate for the holes in our discovery and knowledge.
Through years of scientific advancement and gain in understanding our world, the so-called truths that humans have established may have faults resulting from the way the scientific method approaches them. Haraway suggests that our way of utilizing objectivity needs to reworked to be more inclusive and Nietzsche’s writings extend upon this idea and exemplify how these truths may have fault in them as a result of assumptions. These assumptions built on top of each other lead to the lack of understanding that both authors argue.
Below is an instruction that describes a task, paired with an input that provides further context. Write a response that appropriately completes the request.
### Instruction: How do Nietzsche and Haraway critique the concept of scientific knowledge and its pursuit of objectivity? How do they use the ideas of "the god-trick" and "pride" to explain the faults in scientific discoveries?
### Input: 
### Response: In Nietzsche’s, “On the Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” Nietzsche explains his attitude towards human scientific knowledge with great skepticism, even alluding to humans as “the most arrogant and mendacious” creations (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 7). This same sort of criticism is brought up in the concept of “the god-trick” in Haraway’s, “Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Haraway explains this concept as an illusion within which humans compare their own knowledge to the idea of infinite knowledge to that of a god. This sort of intellectual superiority has been a long-standing concept in human history as we have progressed in scientific thought. Described initially in Haraway’s writing, “the god-trick” remerges in many ideas Nietzsche exemplifies this through various metaphors and explanations of biases through perceptions.
This idea of the “the god-trick” and its qualities of knowing all, stem from humans and their rigid minds, being able to grasp only at what is tangible in their own minds, consequently shutting out other perspectives. Humans approach scientific discovery with a biased view, through their own one-sided viewpoint, and through no fault of their own make scientific discoveries which come from their own observations. But it isn't at this point where human faults are exemplified, Nietzsche argues, rather when scientific discovery is built upon these so-called
 “scientific truths.” It is at this point in time where in a moment notice the concept of science could “swell up like a balloon at the slightest puff” because of the very construct of scientific advancement based on falsities (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 7). Yet, given the knowledge of how fallible so many human discoveries have the potential to be, we still hold on to the idea of superior credibility which can be challenged by no force in our world, in essence, what Haraway refers to. In her idea of the “the god-trick,” Haraway advocates for a different way we approach observations through a different approach to objectivity. In separating ourselves from the almost seemingly personal obligation of being able to understand anything and everything and accepting the complexities of science we are able to remove the idea of false compromise on scientific truths to make up for our lack of understanding.
A fundamental idea that is exemplified in Nietzsche’s writing, is the idea of pride. Pride is a large component of human behavior and many actions are justified. The concept of pride can even be seen as an answer to the implied questions of where the root of the “god-trick” is derived from. From the beginning of time, it can be observed that we humans have had an itch for the idea of conquering. An itch to conquer societies, cultures, land, or even something as simple as higher socioeconomic status. It's quite simply in our blood and has been present for generations of humans. Furthering Haraway’s argument, Nietzsche presents the idea of how being prideful in the depth of our “knowledgeable” we are “blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men'' exemplifying how pride can produce scientific thought that provides answers just for the sake of answering questions that in reality are faulty (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 7). As a result of this, a curtain of deception is created in which humans have assisted in the creation

of their lies which to them have been converted into truth. Scientific discovery from this point on leads to “truth” being built upon from lies.
Turning a blind eye is a large theme within the idea of “the god-trick” and is iterated upon in Nietzsche’s description of the “leaf.” The leaf is a broad example of this created by “disregarding... differences and forgetting distinguishing aspects” (On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense, 24). What is described here is that humans cannot label an "essential quality" for anything they describe. In essence, it is understood that there are many different types of leaves but we are not able to explain the explicit differences among them and in doing so what arises is a lack of “truth'' with the leaf. The fault lies in the generalization of the leaf and applying this generalization to other contexts is where the fault lies, which is exactly what Haraway addresses in her “god-trick” illusion. The very definition of “the god-trick” includes generalizing our own knowledge to compensate for the holes in our discovery and knowledge.
Through years of scientific advancement and gain in understanding our world, the so-called truths that humans have established may have faults resulting from the way the scientific method approaches them. Haraway suggests that our way of utilizing objectivity needs to reworked to be more inclusive and Nietzsche’s writings extend upon this idea and exemplify how these truths may have fault in them as a result of assumptions. These assumptions built on top of each other lead to the lack of understanding that both authors argue.