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 …
-
Right. But that also seems like the much weaker claim. It’s the ‘we’re not about deconstruction’ bit and the implication that deconstruction is about attack that makes the statement weird. Also, the opposition between deconstruction and explaining robustness.
I think I'd need to see the full remarks to try and say what I thought she was specifically saying about deconstruction. Deconstruction is a tool for looking at how things are put together. It doesn't say what you do with that knowledge.
-
-
But yes. I’m trying to write these tweets to make at least implicitly clear my objection to the (contextless) statement, rather than to make this a critique of SJ’s position, which I assume to be way better than this (edited) quote would make it seem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
(obligatory flag for toolbox metaphor for methodology, which here probably overstates the value-neutrality of deconstruction; doesn't contradict the core of the point from
@wellerstein though)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.