Extensive profile on Bruno Latour, the French philosopher whose work helped create the science wars of the 1990s, and gave cover to those who don’t believe in objective reality.
HT @NobodysMonopoly—thank you. 1/6https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html …
-
-
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 -
-
-
He's actually just copping Nietzsche at his worst, if you want to be fair.pic.twitter.com/mOk56TmS2s
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, since that "fact" was not supported by the "common culture" of the time? Jackass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Does it matter if “facts” are received poorly, because it somehow goes against a culture? Isn’t this just a way to always be right, even when you are factually wrong?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.