DOCSLIB.ORG

The Reinvention of Grand Theories of the Scientific/Scholarly Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Reinvention of Grand Theories of the Scientific/Scholarly Process The Reinvention of Grand Theories of the Scientiªc/Scholarly Process Marion Blute Department of Sociology, University of Toronto Paul Armstrong Department of Sociology, University of Toronto In the mid-twentieth century, the reigning understanding of the scientiªc process, logical positivism, disintegrated. Subsequently, there has been frag- mentation in science studies (Hess 1997; Yearley 2005; Sismondo 2008; Restivo and Croissant 2008). Many have emphasized the postmodern theme that general theories or grand narratives are impossible. Despite a profusion of diversity, some sociologists and sociologically-minded philosophers of science continue to produce general theories of the scientiªc/scholarly process. Through textual analysis and interviews, we studied ten such theories empirically on eleven issues, assessing their compatibility or lack thereof with each other, aiming to determine whether a new general theory is emerging. I. Data and Methods This research was inspired by Werner Callebaut’s (1993) classic in which he interviewed major contemporary philosophers of science (speciªcally of biology) at a time when the interdisciplinary label of “science studies” had hardly been invented. The “real” in his title, Taking the Naturalistic Turn: How Real Philosophy of Science is Done, was a playful reference to debates over realism in Philosophy—the title as a whole drawing attention to his intent to study science studies empirically. That, for Callebaut, was “real” philosophy. In the research reported on here, the works of ten major theorists of the This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Perspectives on Science 2011, vol. 19, no. 4 ©2011 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 391 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00046 by guest on 28 September 2021 392 The Reinvention of Grand Theories scientiªc/scholarly process were studied (but not exclusively of biology and chosen from a larger set which were considered). No formal sampling method was used in this selection. Theorists were chosen largely on three grounds—(i) that they be sociologists or sociologically-minded philoso- phers of science (i.e., who seek to understand science/scholarship as a hu- man social activity); (ii) that they tend to believe that a general theory of such is achievable; and (iii) that their theories addressed a wide range of is- sues in understanding the scientiªc/scholarly process. Hence we did not include those whose intent was mainly normative or whose interest in sci- ence/scholarship was only incidental to an interest in culture and social or- ganization more generally. Nor did we include those whose theories were primarily psychologically—rather than socially-oriented; whose work was almost exclusively an historical case study; or feminist science studies scholars, for example, who, while interesting in their own right, did not address an otherwise wide range of issues. The text of the major work rele- vant to the study of the ten chosen was studied (usually a book but in one case a long article although we sometimes also refer to other works by the same authors). For the list of names, afªliations, and major work exam- ined, see Table 1. In addition, interviews were conducted with the major- ity (seven out of ten), usually at scholarly meetings between the summers of 2007 and 2009. In one case, the author, John Ziman, died after an in- terview was arranged but before it could be carried out. In two other cases (Bruno Latour and Donald MacKenzie) we could not arrange interviews for different reasons but included them in the study anyway based on written works alone. Quotes or references from the main texts, where it is obvious who the author is, are identiªed by page number only. Quotes or references to their other writings are additionally identiªed by year. In all cases quotations which are not referenced are from the interviews. Each theorist is associated with one or two unique ideas about the scientiªc/scholarly process. These are emphasized in the summaries of their theories in Section II and listed in Table 3. In addition to clarifying the unique character of their respective theories, we explored their views about a series of issues. The issues and their views on them are discussed one at a time in Section III with the issues listed in Table 3 and their views on them summarized in Table 4. The issues considered arose in three roughly classiªable ways. The senior author had some preexisting interest in Darwinian-style theories of sociocultural change (Blute 2010 was in preparation during the same period) and some issues about history, ori- gins, and change mechanisms (Table 2; see issues 3, 4, and 6) arose natu- rally from that. In other cases such as unique theoretical features, patterns of change, and compatibility (see issues 1, 5, and 11) emerged from our readings of the texts as obvious points of comparison and contrast. More Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00046 by guest on 28 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 393 Table 1. Theorists, Afªliations and Major Work Analyzed Andrew Abbott Gustavus F. & Ann M. Swift Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Sociology, U. Of Chicago. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mario Bunge Frothingham Professor of Logics & Metaphysics, Dept. of Philosophy, McGill University. 2003. Emergence and Convergence: Qualitative Novelty and the Unity of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Randall Collins Dorothy Swaine Thomas Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Gili Drori Lecturer, International Relations Programme, Stanford University. 2003. With John Meyer, Francisco Ramirez and Even Schofer. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Scott Frickel Assistant Professor, Dept. of Sociology, Tulane University. 2005. With Neil Gross. “A general theory of scientiªc/intellectual movements.” American Sociological Review 70:204–232. Steve Fuller Professor of Sociology, University of Warwick. 2006. The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies. New York: Routledge. David Hull Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Philosophy, Northwestern University. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bruno Latour Professor, Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po), Paris. 1979. With Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientiªc Facts. Sage Publications Inc. Reprinted with a new Postscript as Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientiªc Facts in 1986 by Princeton University Press. Donald MacKenzie Professor, Dept. of Sociology, University of Edinburgh. 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. John Ziman deceased, formerly Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Bristol. 2000. Real Science: What It Is and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00046 by guest on 28 September 2021 394 The Reinvention of Grand Theories Table 2. Unique Ideas Andrew Abbott Fractal cycles Mario Bunge Origin of novelty in convergence (mergers) Randall Collins Interaction ritual chains & law of small numbers Gili Drori Globalization & cultural authority of science Scott Frickel Scientiªc/intellectual movements Steve Fuller Social responsibility of science, public involvement David Hull Individuals and interaction in evolution Bruno Latour Social construction Donald MacKenzie Performativity John Ziman PLACE has replaced CUDOS than anything else however, they came from the issues discussed widely about the social nature of science/scholarship—internal versus external, progress, the role of competition and constructionism (see issues 7, 8, 9, and 10) for example. For each interview we drafted a list of questions along the lines of these issues (hence with much overlap between authors), but also extensively tailored to the work of each author. The interviews were open-ended; we allowed the theorists to discourse at their preferred length on a particular topic and in some cases, interviews became quite conversational. The interviews were taped and transcribed. In one case (Frickel) there was a mechanical failure and our comments on his views are from notes made immediately after the interview and do not include di- rect quotes. Our overall conclusion that a Darwinian sociocultural evolu- tionary theory can incorporate both the common and useful unique fea- tures of contemporary theories of the scientiªc/scholarly process is drawn in Section IV. II. Unique Ideas All of the theorists under consideration have one or two unique ideas which distinguish their theories from others including each other (see Table 2.) Andrew Abbott, a Professor of Sociology, is most well known for his research on occupations. He has, somewhat unusually, combined an histor- ical and a quantitative bent in his work. Abbott sees the pattern of change in science as a branching process similar to a segmentary kinship system. However, the additional twist is that he sees this taking place in a fractal Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/POSC_a_00046 by guest on 28 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 395 pattern.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Miguel García-Sancho Talks with Karin Knorr Cetina
    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4 (2018), 246-266 DOI:10.17351/ests2018.239 “These Were Not Boring Meetings”: Miguel García-Sancho Talks with Karin Knorr Cetina MIGUEL GARCÍA-SANCHO1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH KARIN KNORR CETINA2 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Abstract In this interview, Karin Knorr Cetina evokes the first Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science at Cornell University in 1976 as a foundational moment for science and technology studies (STS). This conference consolidated a new approach to the study of science based on the anthropological observation of scientists at work in the laboratory. Knorr Cetina argues that, despite geographically cementing in the United States, this approach originated mainly through the work of European scholars. The years that followed the Cornell meeting were marked by intense debates between the defenders of this anthropological approach and other scholars more focused on ideas than on scientific practice. Knorr Cetina describes these debates as “bloodbaths” and recalls having first coined the term “constructivist” as applied to science studies in 1977. For Knorr Cetina, STS is now shifting its attention from the production to the consumption of technoscientific knowledge. Her current interest in the financial markets and other forms of screen technologies is an example of this transition. She argues that STS needs to overcome its current fragmentation and emphasis in isolated case studies. The establishment of basic research centers with the financial resources to develop collective and long-term programs would help scholars to expand their horizons. In his following reflection, Miguel García-Sancho explores the connections between STS and travel in both a sense of intellectual shift and a more mundane meaning of physical movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists Author(S): Thomas F
    Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists Author(s): Thomas F. Gieryn Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Dec., 1983), pp. 781-795 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095325 . Accessed: 20/10/2014 20:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.173.127.127 on Mon, 20 Oct 2014 20:34:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BOUNDARY-WORK AND THE DEMARCATION OF SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE: STRAINS AND INTERESTS IN PROFESSIONAL IDEOLOGIES OF SCIENTISTS* THOMAS F. GIERYN Indiana University The demarcation of science from other intellectual activities-long an analytic problemfor philosophersand sociologists-is here examinedas a practicalproblem for scientists. Construction of a boundary between science and varieties of non-science is useful for scientists' pursuit of professional goals: acquisition of intellectual authority and career opportunities; denial of these resources to "pseudoscientists"; and protection of the autonomy of scientific research from political interference.
    [Show full text]
  • Malte Ziewitz Talks with Michael Lynch Keywords
    Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 4 (2018), 366-385 DOI:10.17351/ests2018.220 It’s Important to Go to the Laboratory: Malte Ziewitz Talks with Michael Lynch MALTE ZIEWITZ1 CORNELL UNIVERSITY MICHAEL LYNCH2 CORNELL UNIVERSITY Abstract Why would anyone still want to go to the laboratory in 2018? In this interview, Michael Lynch answers this and other questions, reflecting on his own journey in, through, and alongside the field of science and technology studies (STS). Starting from his days as a student of Harold Garfinkel’s at UCLA to more recent times as editor of Social Studies of Science, Lynch talks about the rise of origin stories in the field; the role of ethnomethodology in his thinking; the early days of laboratory studies; why “turns” and “waves” might better be called “spins”; what he learned from David Edge; why we should be skeptical of the presumption that STS enhances the democratization of science; and why it might be time to “blow up STS”––an appealing idea that Malte Ziewitz takes up in his reflection following the interview. Keywords history of STS; Michael Lynch; interview; laboratory; ethnomethodology; parasites; explosive STS MZ The field of STS now seems to be at a point where people enjoy a good origin story. Do you have one you would like to share? ML I’ll give you one that’s very familiar, which gives a lot of credit to Edinburgh. I think there’s a solid basis for this story, certainly other people will tell a different one and we all know that these things are constructed in light of where we are in the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Bourdieu and Latour in STS: “Let’S Leave Aside All the Facts for a While”
    Bourdieu and Latour in STS: “Let’s Leave Aside All the Facts for A While” by Lee Claiborne Nelson M.A., Aarhus University, 2011 B.A., Dalhousie University, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Science and Technology Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) September 2014 © Lee Claiborne Nelson, 2014 Abstract Through the lens of the English-speaking Science and Technology Studies (STS) community, the relationship between Pierre Bourdieu and Bruno Latour has remained semi-opaque. This thesis problematizes the Anglo understanding of the Bourdieu-Latour relationship and unsettles the resolve that maintains the distance that STS has kept from Bourdieu. Despite many similarities between these two scholars, Bourdieu has remained a distant figure to STS despite his predominance in disciplines from which STS frequently borrows and the relevance of his corpus to topics dear to the heart of STS. This is in part due to Latour's frequent criticisms of Bourdieu by name, Latour’s philosophical disagreements with Kant and neoKantians, and Latour’s prestige in STS, and partially due to Bourdieu’s somewhat indirect or orthogonal ways of addressing natural and physical sciences and technology. Due to the fact that the writings of both needed to be translated from the original French to be received by Anglo audiences, important cultural, stylistic, and rhetorical nuances were lost, mistranslated, or not translated across the linguistic and geographical divides. Including these distinctions is invaluable to understanding their relationship and further weakens the justification for Bourdieu's absence from STS.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    FORUM: QUALITATIVE Volume 3, No. 3, Art. 15 SOCIAL RESEARCH September 2002 SOZIALFORSCHUNG Signing for Reflexivity: Constructionist Rhetorics and Its Reflexive Critique in Science and Technology Studies Tarja Knuuttila Key words: Abstract: I argue that reflexivity should not be seen as being primarily about the relationship of reflexivity, Science scientific writing to the realities studied—as it is often understood. In trying to establish this point I and Technology examine the discussion about reflexivity in science and technology studies (STS). The STS reflexiv- Studies, ists claimed that the relativist and constructionist STS undermined reflexively themselves by argu- representation, ing that all knowledge is situated and socially constructed. In the face of this reflexive problematics constructionism, they suggested that "new literary forms", which manifest the constructed nature of scientific text, relativism should be adopted. It seems to me that this program of inscribing reflexivity was semiotically misguided, which contributed to its demise. On the other hand, I argue that the basic reflexive point about the paradoxicality of making general claims about the local and contingent "nature" of knowl- edge is sound and that it should have deserved more attention in the constructionist rhetoric. The second part of my paper draws some more general methodological points from the STS case presented. I am especially interested in the performative aspects of signing for methodological novelties and ask whether it is sensible to talk about "reflexive methodology". Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Turn, Turn, Turn—Reflexivity in STS 2.1 Science "as it actually happens"? 2.2 The possibility of a writerly mode of STS writing 2.3 Reflexivity re-examined 3.
    [Show full text]
  • On Sociological Reflexivity © American Sociological Association 2021
    STXXXX10.1177/0735275121995213Sociological TheoryKrause 995213research-article2021 Original Article Sociological Theory 2021, Vol. 39(1) 3 –18 On Sociological Reflexivity © American Sociological Association 2021 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275121995213DOI: 10.1177/0735275121995213 st.sagepub.com Monika Krause1 Abstract This article offers a critique of the self-observation of the social sciences practiced in the philosophy of the social sciences and the critique of epistemological orientations. This kind of reflection involves the curious construction of wholes under labels, which are the result of a process of “distillation” or “abstraction” of a “position” somewhat removed from actual research practices and from the concrete claims and findings that researchers produce, share, and debate. In this context, I call for more sociological forms of reflexivity, informed by empirical research on practices in the natural sciences and by sociomaterial approaches in science and technology studies and cultural sociology. I illustrate the use of sociological self-observation for improving sociological research with two examples: I discuss patterns in how comparisons are used in relation to how comparisons could be used, and I discuss how cases are selected in relation to how they could be selected. Keywords reflexivity, sociology of the social sciences, philosophy of the social sciences, participant objectification, comparison, case selection When practicing social scientists discuss divisions among themselves, and choices open to them, they routinely
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Science, and Science Studies: Contrasting the Deposition of a Scientific Expert with Ethnographic Studies of Scientific Practice*
    LAW, SCIENCE, AND SCIENCE STUDIES: CONTRASTING THE DEPOSITION OF A SCIENTIFIC EXPERT WITH ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE* DAV I D S. CAUDILL** I. INTRODUCTION [These scientists] appear to have developed considerable skills in setting up devices which can pin down elusive figures, traces, or inscriptions in their craftwork, and in the art of persuasion. The latter skill enables them to convince others that what they do is important, that what they say is true . They are so skillful, indeed, that they manage to convince others not that they are being convinced but that they are simply following a consistent line of interpretations of available evidence . Not surprisingly, our anthropological observer experienced some dis-ease in handling such a tribe. Whereas other tribes believe in gods or complicated mythologies, the members of this tribe insist that their activity is in no way to be associated with beliefs, a culture, or a mythology.1 The appropriation, from anthropology, of ethnographic methodology by scholars in science studies—including Science and Technology Studies (STS), the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), and cultural studies of scientific practices—is now commonplace. While the term “ethnography” has various meanings,2 it usually refers to social science research that (i) explores “the nature of particular social phenomena, rather than setting out to test hypotheses about them,” (ii) works with “unstructured” data, rather than data “coded at the point of data collection * This article is a modified version of a paper delivered (i) October 3, 2002, for the Schrader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis Lecture Series in Law and Psychology, Villanova University School of Law J.D./Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • References.Pdf
    REFERENCES (References to primary articles examined in chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are provided in end-of-chapter reference lists and appendices or are mentioned in passing within the text.) Abt, Helmut A. “Some Trends in American Astronomical Publications.” Publica- tions of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 93 (1981): 269-73. Agassi, Joseph. Faraday as a Natural Philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. Aristotle. Posterior Analytics. 2. Hugh Tredennick. Cambridge: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1960. Aristotle. Rhetoric. Tr. Lane Cooper. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1932. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning. London, 1603. Bacon, Francis. Magna Instauratio. London, 1620. Bachelard, G. Le Materialisme Rationnel. Paris: PUF, 1953. Baddam. Memoirs of the Royal Society, vol. 1. London, 1738. Baldauf, R. B., and B. H. Jernudd. “Language of Publications as a Variable in Scientific Communication.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 6 (1983): 97-108. Barnes, Barry, Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, Barnes, Barry, and Steven Shapin. Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979. Barnes, Sherman B. “The Editing of Early Learned Journals.” Osiris I (1936): 155-72. Bazerman, Charles. “How Natural Philosophers Can Cooperate.” In Text and Profession, ed. Bazerman and Paradis, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, forthcoming. Bazerman, Charles. The Informed Writer. 3d edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. Bazerman, Charles. “Scientific Writing as a Social Act.” In New Essays in Tech- nical Writing and Communication, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontography As the Study of Locally Organized Ontologies
    Ontography as the Study of Locally Organized Ontologies Michael Lynch I first used the term »ontography« in the postscript of a special issue of the journal Social Studies of Science on »the turn to ontology« in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS).1 In their introduction to the special issue, the guest editors, Steve Woolgar and Javier Lezaun, noted that there had been an upsurge in the use of the term »ontology« in STS, anthropology, and other social science fields.2 Woolgar, Lezaun, and other contributors to the special issue expressed both heightened interest in and skepticism about this »turn to ontology.« The »turn« in question was not a turn back to an ancient branch of metaphysics concerned with the constitution of reality, though some of the authors who embraced it did indulge in metaphysical discourse. To the extent that it was a metaphysical movement, the turn to ontology was a turn from one metaphysical orientation to another; from a humanist treatment of representation and meaning-making, to a post-humanist (re)distribution of agency among humans, non-human beings, and material things. This turn was an empirical turn that aimed to investigate particu- lar domains of social action (including but not limited to scientific, technical, and medical actions) in which things (though not necessarily things-as-such; self-suf- ficient, non-relational entities) were highly salient, not only as objects but also as agents, agencies, and intermediaries. The turn to ontology is sometimes presented as a reaction to an over-emphasis on epistemology in earlier work in STS and related fields, particularly work asso- ciated with social constructionism in the sociology of scientific knowledge, which seemed to reduce obdurate material realities to historically, socially, and cultur- ally situated practices and knowledges.
    [Show full text]
  • I Have Been Always Most Moved by Those Whose Views I Have Ended up Opposing
    University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap This paper is made available online in accordance with publisher policies. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item and our policy information available from the repository home page for further information. To see the final version of this paper please visit the publisher’s website. Access to the published version may require a subscription. Author(s): Steve Fuller Article Title: CSI: Kuhn and Latour Year of publication: 2012 Link to published article: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1177/0306312712437228 Publisher statement: None 1 CSI: Kuhn and Latour Steve Fuller Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Keywords: Thomas Kuhn, Bruno Latour, social epistemology, paradigm Corresponding author: Steve Fuller, Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Gibbet Hill Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK Email: [email protected] I have been always most moved by those whose views I have ended up opposing. I say ‘ended up’ because the views are typically ones in which I originally invested considerable study and interest. But then a version of the ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ principle sets in, and my intellectual immune system generates antibodies that ward off later, more virulent strains of such thinkers’ thoughts. So fortified, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the significance of Kuhn (1962) and Latour (1987), who have been influential figures in my thinking about science and technology studies (STS) ever since I began to encounter the field as a graduate student in the early 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Actors and Networks in the Megacity
    Prachi More Actors and Networks in the Megacity Urban Studies Prachi More (PhD) taught at the English Studies Department at the University of Tubingen, Germany. Her research interests include New Materialisms, Smart Cities and Weird Fiction. Prachi More Actors and Networks in the Megacity A Literary Analysis of Urban Narratives An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative de- signed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. The Open Access ISBN for this book is 978-3-8394-3834-3. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Na- tionalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 (BY-NC-ND) which means that the text may be used for non-com- mercial purposes, provided credit is given to the author. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ To create an adaptation, translation, or derivative of the original work and for commer- cial use, further permission is required and can be obtained by contacting rights@ transcript-verlag.de Creative Commons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be required from the rights holder.
    [Show full text]
  • Representation in Scientific Practice Edited by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar
    Representation in Scientific Practice edited by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England Drawing things togetlier BRUNO LATOUR Centre de Sociologie, Ecole des Mines, Paris 1. Putting visualization and cognition into focus It would be nice to be able to define what is specific to our modern scientific culture. It would be still nicer to find the most economical explanation (which might not be the most economic one) of its origins and special characteristics. To arrive at a parsimonious ex- planation it is best not to appeal to universal traits of nature. Hy- potheses about changes in the mind or human consciousness, in the structure of the brain, in social relations, in "mentalit6s," or in the economic infrastructure which are posited to explain the emergence of science or its present achievements are simply too grandiose, not to say hagiographic, in most cases and plainly racist in more than a few others. Occam's razor should cut these explanations short. No "new man" suddenly emerged sometime in the sixteenth century, and there are no mutants with larger brains working inside modern laboratories who can think differently from the rest of us. The idea that a more rational mind or a more constraining scientific method emerged from darkness and chaos is too complicated a hypothesis. It seems to me that the first step toward a convincing explanation is to adopt this a priori position. It clears the field of study of any single distinction between prescientific and scientific cultures, minds, methods, or societies. As Jack Goody points out, the "grand dichotomy" with its self-righteous certainty should be replaced by An earlier version of this article was published under the title "Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with Eyes and Hands," in Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, vol.
    [Show full text]