Science and technology have immense authority and influence in our society, yet their working remains little understood. The conventional perception of science in Western societies has been modified in recent years by the work of philosophers, sociologists and historians of science. In this book Bruno Latour brings together these different approaches to provide a lively and cha...
Science and technology have immense authority and influence in our society, yet their working remains little understood. The conventional perception of science in Western societies has been modified in recent years by the work of philosophers, sociologists and historians of science. In this book Bruno Latour brings together these different approaches to provide a lively and challenging analysis of science, demonstrating how social context and technical content are both essential to a proper understanding of scientific activity. Emphasizing that science can only be understood through its practice, the author examines science and technology in action: the role of scientific literature, the activities of laboratories, the institutional context of science in the modern world, and the means by which inventions and discoveries become accepted. From the study of scientific practice he develops an analysis of science as the building of networks. Throughout, Bruno Latour shows how a lively and realistic picture of science in action alters our conception of not only the natural sciences but also the social sciences and the sociology of knowledge in general. This stimulating book, drawing on a wealth of examples from a wide range of scientific activities, will interest all philosophers, sociologists and historians of science, scientists and engineers, and students of the philosophy of social science and the sociology of knowledge.
作者简介
· · · · · ·
Bruno Latour is Professor at Sciences Po, Paris, and the 2013 winner of the Ludvig Holberg International Memorial Prize.
目录
· · · · · ·
Acknowledgements
Introduction: Opening Pandora’s Black Box
I. From Wearer to Stronger Rhetoric
1: Literature
A: Controversies
B: When controversies flare up the literature becomes technical
· · · · · ·
(更多)
Acknowledgements
Introduction: Opening Pandora’s Black Box
I. From Wearer to Stronger Rhetoric
1: Literature
A: Controversies
B: When controversies flare up the literature becomes technical
C: Writing texts that withstand the assaults of a hostile environment
Conclusion: Numbers, more numbers
2: Laboratories
A: From texts to things: A showdown
B: Building up counter-laboratories
C: Appealing (to) nature
II. From Wear Points to Strongholds
3: Machines
Introduction: The quandary of the fact-builder
A: Translating interests
B: Keeping the interested groups in line
C: The model of diffusion versus the model of translation
4: Insiders Out
A: Interesting others in the laboratories
B: Counting allies and resources
III. From Short to Longer Networks
5: Tribunals of Reason
A: The trials of rationality
B: Sociologics
C: Who needs hard facts?
6: Centres of Calculation
Prologue: The domestication of the savage mind
A: Action at a distance
B: Centres of calculation
C: Metrologies
Appendix 1: Rules of Method
Appendix 2: Principles
Notes
References
Index
· · · · · · (收起)
一本对“科学超脱性”(detachment of science)进行祛魅的书:1、技术性论文(technical papers)中潜藏的修辞术“使异议者感到孤独”,参考文献的层积化特性使试图反驳的读者仿佛感觉自己面对的是一些成群而来的天才从而羞赧地闭上了嘴。2、实验室中的小九九更不必多说了。3...
(展开)
0 有用 HomoMonstrosus 2020-02-14 12:31:23
cool
0 有用 小鹡鸰鬼 2026-03-23 16:33:54 北京
打开拉图尔的黑箱)
1 有用 制造亚瑟王 2025-09-25 21:44:46 北京
一开始觉得摸不着头脑,读到后面才稍微摸到一点门路。通常我们会认为科学的力量在于其“真理性”,当确凿无疑的科学事实公布开来时,其他反对意见便会自行消隐——读完这本书才发现,“自然而然”的正确性其实是争议解决的结果,而非原因。很有意思的是,在阐述如何解决争议、建立正确的过程中,拉图尔特别重视文献和修辞的重要性,而其分析的核心机制是translation。这种对文本和符号流通机制的高度关注,以及强调意义... 一开始觉得摸不着头脑,读到后面才稍微摸到一点门路。通常我们会认为科学的力量在于其“真理性”,当确凿无疑的科学事实公布开来时,其他反对意见便会自行消隐——读完这本书才发现,“自然而然”的正确性其实是争议解决的结果,而非原因。很有意思的是,在阐述如何解决争议、建立正确的过程中,拉图尔特别重视文献和修辞的重要性,而其分析的核心机制是translation。这种对文本和符号流通机制的高度关注,以及强调意义和利益在流通中被不断重新诠释的观点,和结构主义理论颇有相似之处。不过结构主义倾向于用深层的、稳定的、宏大的结构来解释表层现象,不过拉图尔似乎拒绝任何预先定义的前在结构,正相反,在他的理论中,结构是结果。而且在前者的结构中,各个元素是高度同质化的,但拉图尔重视的恰恰是异质性元素如何组成网络。还有很有趣 (展开)
6 有用 fka EyeCU 2019-09-01 15:18:19
特别喜欢Latour这种刨根究底的研究风格。我个人觉得Actor Network theory可适用性真的挺强的,尤其适用少数人如何让多数人买账的场景,非常马基雅维利. 核心是所谓专家的科学研究和日常常识,其实差别在于能够用来捍卫主张的资源的多少,科学家能够调用比普通人更大的网络来捍卫主张,而科学的延展也在于网络的延展而不是所谓主张自身也有多少科学性。这么一想来,在社会科学里,诠释占劣势也是可以理... 特别喜欢Latour这种刨根究底的研究风格。我个人觉得Actor Network theory可适用性真的挺强的,尤其适用少数人如何让多数人买账的场景,非常马基雅维利. 核心是所谓专家的科学研究和日常常识,其实差别在于能够用来捍卫主张的资源的多少,科学家能够调用比普通人更大的网络来捍卫主张,而科学的延展也在于网络的延展而不是所谓主张自身也有多少科学性。这么一想来,在社会科学里,诠释占劣势也是可以理解了,毕竟能调动的只是研究者一张嘴,甚至连访谈都调动不了,因为研究者声称能了解更深的结构,而结构是什么研究者也争吵不休。意外之喜是看见L承认社会中的稳定,认为社会中的稳定在于官僚机构,并把它归结为administrative science,感觉可以借机发挥一下 (展开)
0 有用 yihan爱书橱 2019-08-24 12:58:44
当年上课的时候完全没领会这本书的价值。当我写完论文的时候,讶异为啥导师对我的introduction跟general discussion基本挑不出毛病,才明白原来我在写作过程中用了无数大牛为我的claim打掩护呀,哈哈哈哈哈😁