Nowhere does Latour take responsibility for the interpretation of his work that “facts” are social constructs. He (and Haraway, quoted herein) both want two incompatible things: everything is a social construct, but trust the “good” scientists, the ones with whom we agree. 2/6
-
-
Show this thread
-
I wonder if Latour could define what actually makes a scientist a good scientist? If he does not think that the scientific method minimizes the role of bias in discerning truth, on what basis does he think that we should accept any scientific conclusions? 3/6
Show this thread -
“Facts remain robust only when they are supported by a common culture” Latour argues. He is conflating what is asserted, with how the assertion is received. This creates and then feeds confusion, leaving space wide open for bad actors to come in and make trouble. 4/6
Show this thread -
Kofman, the author of the NYT profile, summarizes Latour: “Whether or not a statement is believed depends far less on its veracity than on the conditions of its ‘construction’” This is true. But again, it conflates belief (social acceptance) with accuracy (truth). 5/6
Show this thread -
Of course he believes in reality! says Latour. But he is either being dishonest with himself, or the rest of us, if he can’t see the logical end point of his work. This is part of what
@ConceptualJames,@HPluckrose, and@peterboghossian revealed w the Grievance Studies Hoax. /endShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Seems like Latour is speaking about epistemology and people are reading him as if he speaks about ontology.
-
Very interesting point, this. If Latour clearly delineated the line (between epistemology and ontology), and never strayed over it, I would still disagree with him, but the philosophical implications, and the ability of others to abuse them, wouldn't be so grave.
-
That is how I read NYT interview (and few other items I've read from him). Word "abuse" is well suited describing how Latour and his kin has been applied in social sciences. But then again I am not an expert on PoMo philosophy. Just interested bystander :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I look forward to reading this! The misuse of poorly understood post-modern philosophy has been such a heartbreak. I would say that the value and insight of Latour and others is hard to separate from the effect it has had on, as you said, "giving cover" for dumb-assery.
-
Please help me learn. What IS the postmodern contribution to knowledge in your opinion?
-
I would love to! I will start on a long form response November 7.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have to say, I admire NYT for calling Latour "post-truth" and not reserving that label to the right wing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's an interesting article because it tries to address Latour's ideas honestly. That's much more compelling than the constant strawmanning of "postmodern nonsense" (Latour's term) that IDW & friends unfortunately indulge in. Maybe this is a good time to actually... (cc
@eyywa) -
…engage these works of horrible postmodern propaganda instead of constantly issuing vague declarations of how damaging they are. On this issue (and perhaps others) I think the IDW is missing the point. Is it too much to ask that we be responsible for _our own_ interpretations?pic.twitter.com/dI3jF1C7oj
-
Very well put. I agree that in order to critique postmodernism you first should take the time to understand it. The IDW fails this test.
-
I understand it just fine. Hyperreality is stolen Lewis Carroll ideas. Postmodernism didn't bring anything new to the table, and had all of it several times in history. Deconstruction is a cargo cult for analysis. 1/2
-
The fruits of the Age of Reason, of empiricism and it's derivative science, are all around us. We could count them all day. Name one fruit of postmodernism. And don't give me robot embodiment garbage, Buddhism and Thomas Aquinas both came up with that long ago.
-
Cute. But don't you see - your (I assume) sincere complaint here mimics the same kind of empty, self-referential jargon that people accuse pomo theory of. No attempt at understanding, citation, analysis, or actual argument. You're saying it's all bad "because I say so." If you...
-
want to convince us, don't tell us to "name one fruit." It's _your_ complaint. Show us that you know what you're talking about and that you're not just shadow boxing in a subjective fantasy about scholarship you don't follow. Quote someone's argument and explain why you disagree!
-
No fruit. Thought so.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.