Hmmmm... Well, not that I’m a laureate, but my STS is absolutely about deconstruction. And it’s definitely a critique of Science and Truth, if not science and truth.https://twitter.com/ssrc_org/status/1068651025689657345 …
-
I mean, I would probably change it to be "can be" (which I agree with), but the ellipsis and obvious lack of context make me pause before giving much comment. I think SJ's point that STS is not really about "attacking" science is correct.
I mean, you and I both know that SJ is not exactly naive about the problematic nature of the authority of science.
-
-
Agreed. But there has been a trend among some of the founders of our field—at least the ones studying the contemporary—to try to pull back from the symmetry logics that once galvanized us. -[or, we could call it a partial return to the scientism of original SSK].
-
Sure. Though even Latour's ideas (as much as I can claim to understand them) seem to me to be very clearly not about a re-embrace of scientism, but rather a reframing of what the aims of epistemology are.
-
I actually had Collins in mind (I can understand him) more than Latour, the latest of which I’m still trying to get a handle on.
-
In L's famous critique/steam piece, he likens these tools to weapons and wonders if we are training for the right battle, etc. I think I might ask: how many old generals of past wars successfully retooled for the next wars? In my reading, very few.
-
I’d buy this more easily if the new critiques of deconstruction didn’t look suspiciously like the old critiques of deconstruction.
-
When I read L closely, I don't find his critique to be similar to the old critiques. But I agree that when he gets "reduced" for very popular consumption (cough cough NYT, but sometimes even scholars) it just turns into "deconstruction is dangerous!"
-
On L, agreed
.
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.