LATOUR: In spite of my tone, I am not trying to reverse course, to become reactionary, to regret what I have done, to swear that I will never be constructivist any more…
My argument is that a certain form of critical spirit has sent us down the wrong path, encouraging us to fight the wrong enemies and, worst of all, to be considered as friends by the wrong sort of allies because of a little mistake in the definition of its main target. The question was never to get away from facts but closer to them, not fighting empiricism but, on the contrary, renewing empiricism.
What I am going to argue is that the critical mind, if it is to renew itself and be relevant again, is to be found in the cultivation of a stubbornly realist attitude—to speak like William James—but a realism dealing with what I will call matters of concern, not matters of fact. (AND HE LAYS THIS OUT IN THE REST OF THE PIECE - APR)
********************************************************* Alan P. Rudy Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work Central Michigan University 124 Anspach Hall Mt Pleasant, MI 48858 517-881-6319
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:04 AM, farmelantj at juno.com <farmelantj at juno.com>wrote:
>
>
> Matthias Wasser <matthias.wasser at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "So Latour moved towards endorsing a more authoritative and canonical role
> for science just when he sees that such a stronger role would be beneficial
> for his political convictions. Interesting."
>
> Yes, both good politics and good epistemology.
>
> Jim Farmelant
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click now for prescreened plumbing contractors.
>
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTRHJBNsRAgg4rXHbtrvHigw0KFJKw1hWJGUgpm7leDJsxaBfC1xJ2/
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>