Philosophers and STS didn't create the climate of doubt around climate change.
A few sad/crotchety/old physicists + Big Oil + Beltway think-tanks peddling pseudo-science and libertarian pipe dreams did. #ExxonKnewhttps://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage …
-
In an interview a year ago, Latour noted his early style had some "juvenile enthusiasm" and that "it felt good to put scientists down a little."https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/bruno-latour-veteran-science-wars-has-new-mission …
Oh, that's evident. But it's also clear that "Science in Action" is more about what scientists do than how analysts should act. I think anyone who has ever written a scholarly paper (in any discipline) can see themselves in chapter 1 ("Literature"), toying with their footnotes.
-
-
What I *like* most about Latour's early work is that it isn't, at its core, disrespectful to science at all. When I teach it to my STEM students, I tell them to read it as "self-help" — he tells them how to be good scientists act in the "real world," free of obfuscating mystique!
-
Marshall your allies! Do end-runs around your enemies! Create immutable mobiles and be their spokesmen! Figure out why your defectors are defecting! Move from the lab to the field, then back to the lab, then back to the field! Conquer!
-
It's really quite flattering so long as you aren't hung up on some very naive ideas about the nature of facts or truth or scientists, in my view. It only sounds threatening if you are very committed against the idea that epistemology is a social activity.
End of conversation
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.