"This way, Latour thought he could analyse the behaviour of scientists and verify how discussions, negotiations, and rivalries shape what becomes "knowledge." After his inquiries, Latour concluded that scientists apply an awful lot of personal biases and human behaviours to so-called factually correct scientific research. For Latour, "facts" gain authority through social processes, institutional validation, and consensus-building. Not just through "objective" discovery."
"The global consensus is that the world became advanced during the enlightenment and scientific revolution. Science, intellectual debate, and a detachment from religious dogma allowed for a clear analytical outlook on the world. After the dark ages, we could finally really progress. The modern and "civilised" man was born. However, Latour rejects this narrative. He questions whether the dichotomy between premodern and modern really happened. For Latour, being modern means that people treat nature and society as two completely separate worlds."
Laboratory scientists were observed ethnographically to analyze behaviors, discussions, negotiations, and rivalries that shape what becomes knowledge. Scientists apply personal biases and human behaviors even within research presented as factually correct. Facts gain authority through social processes, institutional validation, and consensus-building rather than through purely objective discovery. The narrative of modernity that separates nature and society is questioned. Being modern is characterized by treating nature as objective and society as constructed, yet that dichotomy is rejected. The distinction between premodern and modern is not clear-cut, implying hybrids and entangled relations between nature and society.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]