Customer Reviews

Science in Action : How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Latour today can be regarded as one of the leading philosophers of science and technology. After his first work with Steve Woolgar, "Laboratory life", this is his second major work in which he generalises on various topics that he only touched in a very preliminary way in the above work. Latour adopts a very original way of following scientists in their struggle to "produce" scientific truth. He studies them as if they were a tribe (Latour is originally an ethnographer).

His conclusion is that scientific truth and the designing of succesful technological artefacts is not so much a "unveiling of some hidden truth behind things" or a logical construction, but a very heterogeneous project in which money, resources, statements, objects, people and numerous other things are linked in such a way that a strong chain is formed. Something is true if the chains is strong enough to withstand "trials of strength". Latour does away with metaphysical ideas of "The Truth" but insist in stead that truth is very much a stage in a process of negotiation between human and non-human actors. The idea that truth is the result of a logical process in which an abstract "reality" is discovered is, according to Latour, a story that is told afterwards to defend the theory itself and not something that is inherent in the forming of the theory itself.

In a very easy-to-read way Latour guides his readers through the work of science and technology "in the making". A must for any student in science and technology as well as for any scholar in social sciences and philosophy.

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.

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!

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...

Cover to cover, this book has flaws. A personal take on the area of scientific arguments, I feel that many of the statements are speculative or misjudged. This book pales in comparison to a revered work on the topic such as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. A far better recommendation for its historical content and expertise. Science In Action could be dismissed as unnecessary aside from a few valid points and revelations. The content and diagrams offer little useful information to the reader. Better a qualified point of view for an objective examination of Science.

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.

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.