Bruno Latour: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge - by Prof. Bruce Paternoster

[@carolinemason635]

Science and Technology Studies, arguably, uses Bruno Latour far more than philosophy/history of science, etc. I cannot imagine an STS scholar- of which I am one- who does not engage, albeit critically at times, with Latour (particularly with ANT). Social Construction does not negate a non-discursive material reality!! The fundamental mistake that many people make, this talk included, is that they fail to realize that there is a huge difference between arguing that knowledge is socially constructed and being a relativist. Social construction is not relativism nor is it anti-realism.

[@claytonhenrickson9326]

If social constructionist are not the “intellectuals” claiming that science is a social construct, then who is?

[@Roland191]

@@claytonhenrickson9326 "Science is a social construct" and "Social Construction does not negate a non-discursive material reality" are not mutually exclusive statements.

[@claytonhenrickson9326]

@@Roland191 Thanks? How does that address my point? Who, if not social constructionists, are claim science is a social construct? There are folks making that claim, so what is their monicker?

[@ieronim272]

@@claytonhenrickson9326 Language is a social construction and yet if I say watch out and you dodge a boulder coming towards you you can say something happened in reality

[@claytonhenrickson9326]

@@ieronim272 yes, language is a social construct made up of labels, prescriptive and descriptive. Descriptive labels have a definition that describes the thing so if it describes it, it defines it. Person is a descriptive label. Prescriptive labels could be whatever. We use language to describe reality in this way and in this way the language is used to convey things that are not social constructs as well as it does social constructs.

[@vfwh]

What strikes me about this talk is the extent to which handwaving is a core feature of the response each time a precise question from the audience is asked about how this actant network system actually works with real examples... It's always the problem with post-modern thinking. It looks very pretty as a system and seems to make sense when using generalities, but nobody really takes the trouble of applying it in precise, detailed examples to see how it works. I suspect that it's because it doesn't.

[@albertbrennaman5605]

Ever considered that people's lives are messy and ill defined? Maybe this messiness is a property of the actual lives of people, rather something imposed by the theoretical framework you are using to study your phenomena? Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. PublicAdministrationReview, 19(2), 79-88. www.jstor.org/stable/973677?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

[@vfwh]

@@albertbrennaman5605 Well, here's another prime example of exactly what I'm talking about. "people's lives are messy and ill defined" -> therefore we can't hold the theoretical framework to being able to say anything specific and verifiable about the world. A vague statement -> you can't hold me to anything and I can say contradictory things without constraint. I'm not talking about "people's lives", we're talking about Latour here, and scientific experiments....

[@albertbrennaman5605]

@@vfwh what a wonderful blast from the past! Cheers for reminding me of that paper i cited, genuinely appreciated. In relation to your comment, the issue with the complexity comes in in that researchers are human (all too human to paraphrase Freddie). Here the complexity of people's lives manifest themselves in for example scientific experiments. Is the fact that the the experiment failed due to that the undergrad student is poorly paid and was worried about her job security, and hence did a half-arsed job with the prepration of the sample OR is the theory wrong in predicting it? To dismiss such difficulties to belief into a form of scientism. This does not deny that it is possible to make statements about the world, it is just a recognition of how difficult this process is. Furthermore, I would classify Latour's actor network theory as a post-postmodern attempt to precisely get away from the quagmire of relativism that is created if one only focuses on language and power dynamics. In conclusion, if we are not talking about "people's lives", does this then in good Socratic deductive fashion imply that Latour and researchers are above such everyday concerns? That these types of complexities do not influence their thought processes in complex fashion? Does this mean that a theoretical framework like Actor-Network Theory that aims to include such consideration (and others) is not "useful" in making us see these connections with hitherto have been hidden?

[@vfwh]

@@albertbrennaman5605 I'm not questioning the usefulness of critiquing the human process at work in scientific experiments. What I'm doing is reminding a commenter who seems to prefer to ignore it, that the scientific process includes very specific controls, and very specific aims, which are designed to enable reality to oppose the claims that scientists make. This doesn't mean that every scientific experiment is perfectly executed, and that there are no human factors at play. But the method is such that the arbiter of reality provides tools and opportunities to disentangle them. Can it be botched and mired by human bias and "messiness"? Absolutely. Is it even often the case? Absolutely probably. But, in a context where for instance a group would question the findings of another group, the scientific method provides real ways to arbitrate the truth about what is actually really happening in the the real world.

[@albertbrennaman5605]

@@vfwh except the little snag that your whole "scientific method" is a philosophical dead end, if you define it in terms of following procedures or behavioral routines. What philosophers of science have settled upon over the past decades, is that it is much more akin to collective set of values, that include both epistemic and ontological virtues. Not to take anything away from the scientific process, but I've also heard it described as "Christianity without the metaphysics". Historically, this is the background it evolved from. I particularly like Freddie's quote on the subject matter when he states: “You see what actually conquered the Christian God; Christian morality itself, the concept of truthfulness which was taken more and more seriously, the confessional punctiliousness of Christian conscience, translated and sublimated into scientific conscience, into intellectual rigour at any price.” (Nietzsche ([1887] 1989:203) Nietzsche, F. [1887] (1989). On the genealogy of morals and ecce homo. New York: Penguin Random House.

[@KingCrocoduck]

Proposition 1: reductionism is false. Proposition 2: all phenomena are reducible to either bring actors or actants. Maybe there's a good reason why Latour is ignored?

[@axelsprangare2579]

Realism and reductionism are the main focus of philosophy of science and that's why he get's ignored so much. He makes very valid points though from my perspective. (I'm an instrumentalist).

[@ricochetsixtyten]

Proposition 2 is not necessarily a reductionism, more like an abstraction, within this abstraction we can add as much complexity as we see fit.

[@humbertoluebbert7968]

Thanks you all. Very usefull lesson for me.

[@num1shinfan]

Useful in the way that saying "God did it" is useful to religious people when they can't except facts either

[@vfwh]

I'm only 35 mintues in. Does he at any point address the elephant in the room, ie the terms and conditions in the scientific approach by which one can actually claim something to be true or false, ie appeal to experiment/reality/consistency?

[@juanjoseberger8531]

that's the whole point of Latour in my opinion, the critic is not to relativism but to what are their codes of operation. Is a cynical posture I think.

[@FalseDusk]

This blew my mind

[@paolomath]

FalseDusk what blew your mind, if I may ask? I have read Latour, and was aghast.

[@num1shinfan]

@paolomath you can't reason with them. Their brain is a social construct

[@sarapio23]

You have just seen a video of some proffesor simplifying a pretty "light" (there lies its virtue, the more detailed the map is, the less you'll look away from it) theoretical frame, still, you haven't understood what "social construct" means. It's obvious that the guy or girl you're responding to hasn't read any of Latours work, yet, he or she, claims above, that Latours work is not valid, as usual without supporting his/her unfounded claims with arguments. The most funny thing about this style of debate is that usually the one disagreeing with Latour (or any other researcher, doesn't make a difference) first, isn't an scientist, second, doesn't have a clue about the topic, third, his tought isn't different from religious belief. But well, as i also like to lose my time and have fun on youtube every now and then, here goes this meaningless comment. Knowing that your "knowledge" comes from science-related-curious-fact-journalistic magazines, i can leave happy thinking that what you think doesn't make a difference in anything.

[@vfwh]

sarapio23. Mmm. The guy making the lecture seems pretty familiar with the topic. Don't you find the amount of handwaving that he has to use to answer any specific question from an audience member a little troubling? That it's not possible, apparently, to answer specific questions using this system? I mean the fact that at the same time that he seems to insist that it's important that specific unicorns are actants, and NOT unicorns as a class, he handwaves away any attempt at clarifying what he means there ("you can call them an idea if you like"), that's rather an indictment to me. This happens all the time with post-modernist thinkers: each time we get into specifics of how the system actually applies in specific cases, the conversation always ends up in handwaving and general statements. I mean, if you abide by this system, what is your answer to "Is the Earth flat?". Is the concept of "flat" an actant? Is "flat" and actant or a concept? Is the word "concept" an actant? Are these descriptive properties (like "flat") actants themselves? Is there somekind of association between the "flat" actant and the "earth" actant? What's the difference between the Earth actant itself and the "Earth" word actant and the "Earth" concept actant? What is the force that creates a stronger association between the "sphere" actant as a property of the actant "Earth"? Does the *actual shape of the Earth* discriminate (gives more force) between one and the other? What role does the actual shape of the Earth have to play in the association?

[@alfredoldr1731]

The most concise, precise and empirically incontrovertible definition of the nature of science is Ivan Illich's: "fundable research"

[@jn9218]

May I ask who knows where to find his argument on this subject ? It would benefit me greatly. Thank you.

[@alderom1]

@@jn9218 I dont remember, have you tried googling it?

[@numbynumb]

The gravitational constant is not "an explanation for the curvature of time and space", it is simply a measurement. The gravitational constant was well established long before Einstein appeared on the scene. There is no explanation as to what causes the supposed curvature of time and space.

[@paolomath]

Bruno Latour is NOT forgotten, unfortunately. on he contrary he still has huge influence on humanities, having charmed people that don't have a clue about what science is into believing his 'anthropological' reports of it. He has absolutely nothing to teach about science nor the sociology of it, and his conclusions are sadly ludicrous. But I would sincerely to discuss with anyone who has a different opinion and I am open to change mine (never mind the bluntness of how I put it)

[@matthewkelly2399]

I don't disagree with you but would you put up an example of someone within the humanities who we should admire

[@_VISION.]

Write a book and publish it

[@numbynumb]

How do you define "science"? Is the definition limited to methodological considerations or does it necessarily include a sociological dimension?

[@warrenrandall6936]

@@numbynumb Look into the scientific method and look at many examples where scientists and mathematicians openly disagree on interpretations e.g. Quantum Theory. Natural Sciences require much hard thinking and work and the people who do it are well aware of the uncertainties. However, a field such as Quantum Theory has had many applications which drive modern technology.

[@numbynumb]

@@warrenrandall6936 Can you give me an example of a technology whose development depended on quantum theory ?

[@warrenrandall6936]

Of course, the wonderful aspect of this pseudo Newtonian gobbledygook is that you can't test it. You can't predict with it.

[@NRWTx]

You have just seen a video of some proffesor simplifying a pretty "light" (there lies its virtue, the more detailed the map is, the less you'll look away from it) theoretical frame, still, you haven't understood what "social construct" means. It's obvious that the guy or girl you're responding to hasn't read any of Latours work, yet, he or she, claims above, that Latours work is not valid, as usual without supporting his/her unfounded claims with arguments. The most funny thing about this style of debate is that usually the one disagreeing with Latour (or any other researcher, doesn't make a difference) first, isn't an scientist, second, doesn't have a clue about the topic, third, his tought isn't different from religious belief. But well, as i also like to lose my time and have fun on youtube every now and then, here goes this meaningless comment. Knowing that your "knowledge" comes from science-related-curious-fact-journalistic magazines, i can leave happy thinking that what you think doesn't make a difference in anything.

[@warrenrandall6936]

@@NRWTx My scientific understanding comes from a BSc and PhD in a science. Nice try, but no cigar.

[@NRWTx]

@@warrenrandall6936 It's obvious that the guy or girl you're responding to hasn't read any of Latours work, yet, he or she, claims above, that Latours work is not valid, as usual without supporting his/her unfounded claims with arguments. The most funny thing about this style of debate is that usually the one disagreeing with Latour (or any other researcher, doesn't make a difference) first, isn't an scientist, second, doesn't have a clue about the topic, third, his tought isn't different from religious belief. But well, as i also like to lose my time and have fun on youtube every now and then, here goes this meaningless comment.

[@pm71241]

Unicorns? .... 'nuff said.

[@warrenrandall6936]

This requires a discussion falsifiability.

[@texcatlipocajunior144]

I'm afraid Prof Bruce has confused clever word play with brilliant insight. Latour is an academic mayfly whose 15 minutes of fame are up.

[@NRWTx]

ok einstein