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

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!

It suprised me! Cause the price was lower than the others. Thus I was not expecting a new non used book. I appreciate it.

The main point of the book is quite clear: the scientific processes is quite messy and social. The book is written in a very dense, detailed and tedious manner. Very hard to read.

Bruno Latour provides an excellent framework for understanding the production of scientific knowledge. His "black box" theory of the development of facts is a useful metaphor which can be extended beyond science studies into the other arenas of intellectual discourse and fact-making. Anyone interested in the social construction of knowledge should give this volume a close read.

AMAZING!

In "Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society", Bruno Latour works to offer a methodology for understanding the history of science, though he does not begin with the conclusion. Latour writes, “Our entry into science and technology will be through the back door of science in the making, not through the more grandiose entrance of ready made science” (pg. 4). To this end, he writes, “I simply wish to summarize their method and to sketch the ground that, sometimes unwittingly, they all have in common. In doing so I wish to help overcome two of the limitations of ‘science, technology and society’ studies that appear to me to thwart their impact, that is their organisation by discipline and by object” (pg. 16). Therefore, he writes, “We understand now why looking at earlier stages in the construction of facts and machines is more rewarding than remaining with the final stages. Depending on the type of modalities, people will be made to go along completely different paths” (pg. 25).For his project, Latour forwards seven rules for studying science in action. Latour summarizes his first principle, writing, “The construction of facts and machines is a collective process” (pg. 29). His second rule asks followers “to look for the intrinsic qualities of any given statement but to look instead for all the transformations it undergoes later in other hands. This rule is the consequence of what I called our first principle: the fate of facts and machines is in the hands of later users” (pg. 59). Scientific instruments are necessary to Latour’s third rule, so he defines them more broadly than most. Latour writes, “An instrument, in this definition, is not every set-up which ends with a little window that allows someone to take a reading. A thermometer, a watch, a Geiger counter, all provide readings but are not considered as instruments as long as these readings are not used as the final layer of technical papers” (pg. 68). This leads to his third rule: “since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature’s representation not the consequence, we can never use the outcome – Nature – to explain how and why a controversy has been settled” (pg. 99).Latour continues, “Our fourth rule of method thus reads exactly like the third – the word ‘Society’ replacing the word ‘Nature’ – and then fuses the two together: since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Society’s stability, we cannot use Society to explain how and why a controversy has been settled. We should consider symmetrically the efforts to enrol and control human and non-human resources” (pg. 144). Of his fifth rule of method, Latour writes, “We should be as undecided as the various actors we follow as to what technoscience is made of: to do so, every time an inside/outside division is built, we should follow the two sides simultaneously, making up a list, no matter how long and heterogeneous, of all those who do the work” (pg. 176). Of his sixth rule, he writes, “When faced with an accusation of irrationality, or simply with beliefs in something, we will never believe that people believe in things or are irrational, we will never look for which rule of logic has been broken, we will simply consider the angle, direction, movement and scale of the observer’s displacement” (pg. 213). Finally, Latour’s seventh rule offers a more fixed approach to studies of science. He writes, “What I propose, here, as a seventh rule of method, is in effect a moratorium on cognitive explanations of science and technology! I’d be tempted to propose a ten-year moratorium. If those who believe in miracles were so sure of their position, they would accept the challenge” (pg. 247).

I purchased the Kindle version of the book and quickly returned it. The issue isn't Latour's content but the consistently sloppy formatting and sometimes incomprehensible editing choices. I had a copied chapter to compare the print and ebook version and these were some of the things that made the book nearly useless: complete lack of illustrations, lists of footnotes in German, many transferable format features of the book are not present (bolded key terms, italics, indented block quotes, etc.), the eBook's table of contents is utter chaos, and pagination retains the print version, causing confusion unless you have the print version handy. If you're a casual reader, the eBook's formatting issues might not be a deal breaker, but if you need something you can depend on, the go with the print book.

One of the most helpful reads in history that I've read. This is a book that you KEEP, read and reread for years to come. The process of scientific evaluation is highly regarded for many reasons and this book enables you to participate in this exploration. I highly recommend.