So I re-read the piece more closely, and would not change anything in my original comment. I *do* agree with you, but was trying to argue that even for what you are calling “straight” knowledge, all the conditions and issues you bring up for “curvy” knowledge *should also apply*. It’s not that it’s not “true” that if you put the wing on this way versus that way it doesn’t make a difference, but by accepting that as “knowledge” that can exist outside of culture, norms and practices, we continually cede the site of struggle to those who argue they are simply study “what was already there.” I understand this is extremely slippery slope, and like I said, I was extremely reluctant to even post a comment, not just because of diminished energy and focus but because *I* don’t have this all clear for myself. But I venture that it’s making this distinction in the first place that then moves us along to treating what you’re calling “curvy knowledge” in the ways you accurately describe, that are both ineffectual and inappropriate. I was urging a much more radical critique which I am only just embarking on.