A keen but "disinterested" observer more affordable by France than the U.S.?
One can sympathize with the engineer who wanted to throw the Latour's book at the wall. "Engineers do, while scientists discover and write". Latour is not about coming to firm conclusions, identifying and clarifying problems, and providing cogent summaries of scientists' activities. One could perhaps describe him in terms of a hypothetical analogy involving a disinterested sportscaster at a university. The sportscaster does not identify with or root for a given team. He doesn't provide statistics on comparative performance of players. Rather, he makes eclectic observations about sports, like comparing the weight range for football players with that of championship tennis players; racial breakdowns by sport, critical skills involved in different sports, characterizing audiences and fans of each sport, and perhaps tracing typical histories of players as they rise to high achievement in their sports.
Latour is an observer (and also a writer) of sophistication. However, France can perhaps afford his kind of detached exploration better at the present time than can the U.S. We have current crises that are less serious in France. These include domestic conflict over global climate change policy; and lack of communication between interest groups, and consequences of longstanding avoidance of political policy problems like systems for sustainable support of major social services. My my own preference is that our scientific and conceptual talent move more from the Latour model to that of the engineer!
extremely though-provoking
In 20 years in higher ed. in the social sciences, I am hard pressed to think of a book that immediately and permanently transformed the way I understand the world more than this one. It opens up hundreds of questions and is a delight to read. Probably the best starting point for a newcomer to Latour's ouevre, too.
a physicist's perspective
The introduction was so promising, but the first chapter made me want to hurl the book at the wall (I didn't because I was on a plane, and that probably violates some security restriction.) I think he describes many of the *behaviors* of scientists correctly, but he seems to completely miss the *meaning* that they attribute to these behaviors. He's like an anthropologist studying Catholics who describes all the weird details of what goes on at Mass but never mentions Jesus.
What I got out of the first chapter is that scientists try to prove themselves right by citing other people, and they need other people to cite them for their ideas to live on and be taken seriously. This is certainly true, but he makes it seem like this is the main activity of science. Maybe I'm naive, but I still think the main activity of science is to figure something out about the world. The reason you cite all those other people is because you think they figured something out correctly, and the reason people cite you is because they think you figured something out.
Unfortunately, I can't say anything about the rest of the book because I never made it past the first chapter.
An Engineer's Opinion...
I'm an electrical and electronics engineer, working for a governmental R&D Institution. I also study on Science and Technology Policy Studies for an M.S. degree. I found the book quite useful, especially in its aspect of analyzing the scientist and engineer in his own time, his own context, his own psychology... It is a well organized, fluent, clear book. It may not be a complete guide or a definitive study, but it is a good point to start. Recommended...
Trivial where not incorrect
Latour again demonstrates trivial insights and egregious errors. He simply does not know his subject (allegedly science) well enough - he makes conceptual and factual blunders. I am glad this book is still in print because it is a useful aid in teaching humanity students about science - but not in the way Latour had envisioned! By understanding his misinterpretations, we can learn how laypeople get confused.
(6 reviews)
