Using a species of cinematographic dynamics, Latour analyzes three moments in the recent history of science and technology:
1985: John Whittaker, no Pasteur Institute, in Paris, analyzes DNA sequences and, as given, assembles three-dimensional images of the double helix, with an Eclipse MV / 8000 computer.
1951: James Watson and Francis Crick try what would be the structure of the DNA molecule, tempting various hypotheses.
1980: Tom West, a company General Data, USA, tries to operate a prototype of the machine that would be Eclipse MV / 8000.
bruno-latour-science-em-acao-um-text-of-accompaniment-of-leitura-e-sugestoes-de-monografiasOs exemplo são, bem according to the subtitle do livro, drawn from both scientific and technological contexts. Unlike science / technology or pure science / applied science, it is not the author's interest. He will find in all these activities, doravante techno-scientific calls, similarities that impedem any clear and useful distinction. Or that it matters more or the council of caixa preta. In 1985, both the DNA double helix character and the Eclipse são caixas pretas function. Ou seja, it is possible to go on and not reopen such caixas and examine your content. In 1951, the structure of DNA was uma caixa aberta, which only worked for Watson and Crick (obviously, it was up to a scientific community to be truly convinced) it was dating. O mesmo vale para o trabalho de Tom West, em 1980.
É nessa introdução that Latour also presents a double face of Janus, or Janus scientist. A face direita represents science in construction and skeleton, in early science. A face esquerda semper will say, on the techno-scientific activities, sentences that appeal for noções of «verdade», «realidade», «princípios», «rigor» etc. A face direita, which represents ciência em construção, will always fail to "convince", "decision", "strategy" etc. É that or appeal à verdade ou à realidade can only be feito, for Latour, you can say that realidad foi is established and, therefore, fail of the country to be fail true. But, before that, there is no world (a philosophical position that is too great for the author, which is always avoided or lamaçal dessas discussões) ou não temos meios de conhecê-lo, assim, we must make decisions, I am not sure. Depois of taken to decision (e, especially,se a decisão foi frutífera), we will say that we take o caminho da verdade. More isso, let us emphasize, it is always said a posteriori.
"Quem é esse Jano?" It is an interesting question. Is he a scientist, or a technologist, or a student of science? Hardly serious or technologist, I was worried about that kind of thing. Latour claims that he is "a science." OKAY. Pois, embora estude C&T, acknowledges that the technologists are not fazem esse speech and that nem all student of science or segue. Assim, esse «a ciência» would be melhor understood «the scientists».
A noção de caixa preta is important to differentiate context and content. In 1985, both the structure of DNA and the performance and reliability of Eclipse are only part of the context. Either the content of the research is not passed by there, it is the same way that, in the case of materials and methods of a paper on cloning, or a scientist will not analyze the structure of DNA, will discuss which proteins are unsuitable from amino acids, etc. This is the part of the context or seja, the focus of attention and foi para o cenário, giving way for other questões to play the leading role. But, in some other history, these are some of the context in which there were no precedent caixas. To study as these caixas are dated, as they are used when dated and as a result they may eventually be reopened for the purpose of life.
Latour notes that both West and Watson e Crick, there is no time to be discouraged (not a moment when the caixa preta is open), it refers to its object of study and the decisions that it is necessary to take to continue adiantly in terms that we can see as discourse dated science (history of science that was rewritten when caixa preta is dated):
West: organogram, government, protocol, bureaucratic, minimize cliffs. São as expressões that he uses when analyzing a chip manufactured by a concorrente (p. 18).
Watson e Crick: suspense, tom, jogada, prazo de publicação. São o que eles dizem quando julgam um paper by Linus Pauling, who misrepresents the structure of DNA (p. 20).
Nessa height, a tese de Latour é bem forte: there is no "a coisa" and "o julgamento sobre a coisa". If it exists (or that it is the most common sense about scientific activity), then we would say that West is a technical analysis and, therefore, some considerations regarding a company that was created or a corresponding chip. More or less, that, not a moment of decision, or fear of being feito on the fly, sem that "a coisa" seems to be condemned. Therefore, according to Latour's thesis: to separate this discourse in an ideological parti-pris sem muita sustainability. It is, on the contrary, consolation as the anthropological method of the author, part-is given pure and simple observation of the two speech involved, it is ineffective to see one speech only, which is understood by all the actors, which does not stop to separate it into parts.This separation is a study ferrament used by which takes a realistic and cumulative party of science and not something that makesna atividade do cientista.
Watson has had to make a decision based on the opinion of a colleague from Trabalho, who found him at all or who was writing to us chemistry books of this time. How was it decided? Analyzing or curriculum, given pessoais, endorsing psychology read the colleague. Is that the method? Só numa accepção muito ampla da palavra (p. 23).
That example illustrates Primeira Maximus of Janus:
face esquerda: «Oil os fatos sem discuss». face direita: "Descarte os fatos inúteis".
West had to decide, when all or pressure, he had to continue to face the blinds or build a debugger for Eclipse. Or what would be more efficient? Isso cam à
Janus' second maxim:
face esquerda: «Fique semper com a mais ma efficient». face direita: «Decide or what is efficiency».
West needs to finish debuting his chip. I attached that this happens, by machine, by definition, it does not work. You say that this happens (ou, hair less, you say that, in practice, it goes through some tests considered to be hairs wrapped), it starts working. But, he says or author (p. 27): "Nenhuma das razões pelas quais la ela will work as a final aid to all of us enigheiros enquanto eles estão construindo."
Isso exemplifies Terceira de Jano maximum:
face agrees: «When the machine works, everyone will be convinced».
face direita: "A machine will work when those interested people are convinced."
Watson and Crick, já dicendo to make to structure, ainda sentiam necessidade of support for their pairs. This is what I wanted to support and built with metal, a more beautiful model to see. In spite of the controversy ainda aberta, or fato é que or model that the propõem agrees with other fatos bem made. Isso ajuda no dated da caixa. Why?
Janus's fourth highest:
face is: "O que é verdade semper sustenta". face direita: "When things are sustained, they come to transform themselves into truth."
Or subchapter no qual essas maxims são expostas and entitled «When or enough is never enough». It is that, at an hour of controversy, or that seems, depois, enough to attest to the correction of a theory or description, no. A passage of insufficient for not enough is given by mere accumulation of results and, much less, hair respect some method. A análise dessa passagem é or purpose desse livro.
All these maxims give face direita by Janano baseiam-se no principio de subdeterminação de Duhem-Quine (nenhum fator isolated by dating uma controversy, p. 31).
Nessa height, Latour propõe sua
PRIMEIRA REGRA METHODOLOGICAL
We study in science and in technology or in prompt technology; For Isso, we checked before the cats and machines had been transformed into caixas-pretas, or we accompanied the controversies that reopened them.
As methodological rules are only in relation to what is "nothing or nothing" (p. 36). Latour as escolhe em to the detriment of outras due to their belief that they are the most efficient to accompany melhor, for more time and more independently or two scientists and technologists work. Essa é, assim, uma "metaregra" Latourian, which defines as regras são escolhidas.
One important thing here is the passive role of the scholar. Ele «chega» e
"Acompanha". He never intervened. It will be enforced, it will force scientists and technologists to respond to a non-standard situation, whatever it may be, explain to the outsider or what is happening, or what will prove to be very provavely, resulting in an ideological discourse.
À page 33, the fala do trabalho do scholar da ciência, which is basically to observe or process that chamou em "Laboratory life", "subtract modalities".
Part 1: Give rhetoric mais fraca à mais forte
Chapter 1: Literature Part A: Controversies
In this chapter, Latour will fail in positive and negative ways.
Positive when uma sentença, inserted in outra, and taken more as a fato.
Negative when that mesma sentença hangs for a ficção.
Before, however, as defined, Latour situates his method as a "relativistic and critical perspective" (p. 39).
It is critical for its starting point, for "following" and not "guiding". He is a relativist and he is also not assuming any pattern as "true", against or against the practices, methods and results practiced or obtained by scientific scientists, who should be judged.
The author is commenting as an example of a sentence that says that the American system of mísseis is emperigo due to the precision of a new Soviet mísseis. A sentença é verdadeira ou falsa? It will be true, a course of development must be followed, creating new defense systems. It is false, it must be followed by another course, verifying as possible the agency of espionagem obter inaccurate information. Assuming a future perspective. Assuming another cam to the conditions of origin of the statement. Seja as for, a sentença only enters to discuss when it is inserted em outras. Yes, it is nothing, it does not make decisions, it does not require it. «A sentence can be made more fato ou mais ficção, depending on how it is inserted in outras. Just in case, it is a sentence of no fiction; it becomes uma ou outra, later, thank you to other sentences »(p. 45).
Here it is clear or relativism. There is a parti-pris that there is no sense in examining the truth of atomic sentences (such as the loss of implicit positivism). Or as much as you can claim to be coerced with sets of other sentences, these also dependent on others, a holism that Quine and its "maximum mutilation minimum".
Once when science is about statements and since its truth cannot be judged on a case-by-case basis, but only when these are linked to others, stated by other people, we see that construction is true of a collective decision (or that Latour defines as his Primeiro Princípio) and that there exists a "retrospective transformation of truth value" of sentences, according to the modalities in which they will be inserted later. Once Latour does not differentiate disciplines, we are here authorized to include even mathematics (bem na linha de Reuben and Hersh, “A mathematical experience”, translated not Brazil by Francisco Alves, in 1985).
Part B: When the controversies become inflamed and literature becomes more technical
I tied it here, we saw as a statement no real value untied from others and that controversies could be expressed as alterations of modality. In fact, in the beginning, these controversies are designed to resist the temperature that produced a typical result when it comes to science: scientific work. (In any case, saying that this rhetorical vehicle is one of the least studied seems rhetorical to me.)
Latour começa com uma converses among leigos em que um diz ao outro que o jornal news uma novidade scientific. O outro duvida eo primeiro lança mão da qualidade do jornal. Ainda sem credited, lança mão das credenciais do articulista, depois das credenciais de quem o articulista refer, bind that or opponent desist. Not at the end of the story, because of his oil, he does not have rigorous hair, he has reason, but for pure appeal to authority.
To Jano's skeleton face, he gives a quick start, he says that "A ciência does not bend to a mountain of opinions". More face to face, he says in construction, he said "How can I be stronger than a mountain of opinions?". A neglected face or power gives rhetoric. A face direita or reconhece eo emprega, to win discussões.
Here, as on other occasions, I frieze for some that o livro não é um «desmascaramento» gives scientific activity, but, before, of an empirical research sem, supposedly, pré-juízos. Frieze that ciência éso that your public image is not cynically studied more, before, perfectly compatible with that fazer. Além disso, frieze that or impressive é that isso "da certo". Therefore, it is necessary to find the reasons for not being certain and not seeing the research process for a degradation of scientific activity, which would place two less prestigious ones. I want, in truth, to avoid that legend that Kuhn was the victim, that, since science (especially, not Kuhn's case, physics) does not seem to follow the method, so much on the face of it. Não, a science is a great conquest and it is true. Or that it is necessary to discover why, and if it is only possible to be ugly, we will abandon or presume that there is an a-historical method.
Latour passa agora an analysis of the artigo bibliography. A controversy is regarding the structure of the release of hormonal growth. AV Schally affirms that there is such a structure. Seus critics (who will be certain) affirm that the structure given by Schally is the same as a hemoglobin, a common contaminant in brain extracts. Latour analyzes an article from 1971. A bibliography has 32 articles. Ye mais antigos, aos quais o autor is reported, dão-lhe insertion na discipline. O grosso é formed by recent artigos, which lhe dão atualidade. After that, I just disagreed with the author and was reported. But the power could not be depressed or fazer, under pain of hiding the subject of the mat. Quote-o, então, more said that your results are wrong.O diagram of citations that Latour uses (where did you see this way of showing bibliography?) Is on page 60. O physicist and philosopher Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond affirms that at least it is unsettled for more than 10 or 12 years. Diagram hair, give to see that it is more or less so. O grosso das citações tem no maximum five anos de idade e mais antiga fora published 23 years before artigo.
Or that Schally has a bibliography? Second Latour (p. 66), follow some regs:
- In this way, the inimigos paralyze you that you cannot help the allies are attacked by the forem attacked, and secure communications with those who supply them with inquestionáveisobrigueos the inimigos a brigarem uns com os outrosse niver certa de que vai ganhar, seja huilde e faça citaç Latour: "são regras simples: são as regras dos velhos politicos".
All these themes are visam a uma só coisa: isolar or leitor. Do you want to disagree with artigo? But, I thought bem; Olha quem is on my side! Assim, or scientific art and presented as an emblem of transparency, as something that intimates or reads to enter. But it requires that he enter directly, following the rules of the author's hair. Sair da linha, a bibliography (to discuss what the submissive, pois nenhuma sentença tem value em si, but only when inserted not a speech by others) or fará desist. É uma calculated peça rhetoric, which aims to win or argument pela autoridade. Na surface, as citations would be a summary of the logical statement of the text. More burning or recruiting? None, nem ele is there for isso. It is clear that, in an ideal situation, you will be able to disagree point by point. But I will not publish, or will be published and will not quote, then disagree,no matter how abalizada it may be, it will have been null. And as to construction of fatos and collectively, it is worth or that it is current, not or that it is argued.
Or the following topic is dedicated precisely to questões de citação. Or dream of an author is solid. Depois, quoted. Melhor ainda, bem quoted. Melhor added, to be quoted, when he was not to appear to be enunciated in the initial sentence, losing negative modalities (which, for the conditions of enunciation) and gaining positive ones, occasionally left speculation to become fato. A original discovery will be transformed into "tacit conhecimento" (p. 73) and will pass to or context. On page 75, there is a diagram of the history of a statement:
original statement (A é B) negative modalities M- (A é B) positive and negative modalities M - + (A é B) something (showed that (A é B)) total absence of modality (A é B) tacit support (silêncio) incorporation (instruments)
Let us fear an interesting conclusion:
The current idea is that, for a text to be technical, it should be a reader or reader more true than for a text to read or read, we should be technical.
Part C: Creeping texts that resist attacks from a hostile environment
In the first place, it is necessary to see that the texts are strengthened, as I am releasing more of the references and, mainly, when I draw figures and tables. These are "or world" within the text. No case of bibliographic references, or referent was always out of the text. But as the figures say, "Another voice": "Você duvida? Então veja aqui mesmo ».
À page 83, or author comments that, not a scientific text, according to what the reader is embracing, there is no authority (from the author and his references) to Natureza, but from authority to more authority.
Nem could be different, given or party of the author. "A Natureza" is something that, leaf, é "context", more than já foi object of controversy. Enfim, é uma caixa preta dated. More or date dessa caixa is guaranteed by appeal to authorities. Whenever an author deals with context, there are two attitudes. You either incorporate internally (when you are sure that there will be nothing or what to argue) or you refer to the authorities (when you say that or context, in view of the object in focus in the discussion, it could be questioned and reopened). There is no fund for that little. Ou o fundo é trivial: nossas sensações indiscutidas, or senso comum atual. Which, I do not found, is also the subject of controversy. It is just that, as these controversies do not date from the date of the opening, we lose sight of the interior or the precário do senso comum character.
It is also the height that Latour defines "scientific text" (p. 82): "A transformation gives linear prose to, say, interlaced formation of lines of defense, or at the very most certain that the text has become scientific."
You can show how the texts supposedly trazem or world within them, Latour discusses three strategies of stratification of texts, which become more scientific scientists than localized descriptions and the faults of muito mais do que falam na realidade.
Enfim, Latour will search the rhetoric of the mechanisms of induction.
Topic 1: Empilhamento
Suppose a text discussing Renais mechanisms in mammals. Of fato, or researcher I studied:
| 3 pieces of meat | What foram considered… |
| 3 hamster rins | that extrapolated foram for… |
| hamster rins | that, since hamsters are rodents, they will turn… |
| rodent rins | e as rodents are mammals, we fear… |
| mammal rins | that is the title of artigo em questão. |
Now, it will depend on the researcher's credit. It gives way that we fail in positive and negative modalities, we fail in induction. If the researcher loses credit, his asserções will be inserted in negative modalities, which will raise him for the amount, for those conditions that you are beginning to enunciate. Enfim, thinking of indução thermos, mammalian cam for hamsters and, daí, for three fatias of meat.
As a lembra or author (p. 86), "a text is like a bank: a company with more money than anything in its chests."
Isso is practically valid for any text, even the most pure philosophical ones. According to or credit that we give to Descartes, as meditações dizem respeito à razão ou a um homem sozinho that thinks so much strangely. Sequence would be homem sozinho >> all homem >> a razão. Num limit, we will be failing in philosophy. Not another, in biography.
That effort is according to three regrinhas: (1) never by litters exactly on top of others, they have not started, and you want to form an arch, not a tower; (2) never litter litters, unless you are absolutely sure that there is no question in question; (3) Always use or exact material: prove a point using exactly or that is necessary and sufficient. Você você mais que o sufficient, a prolixidade may be interpreted as insecure. If you use less, your speech will be interpreted as devoid of argument.
Topic 2: Cenography and framing
Neste ponto, Latour enters as what he defines as «semiotic personagens». In the form of a ganhar or reader, place it not text. It is also the way that, as a film or efficient book, the reader is expected to identify himself as a given person. Isso facilitates or flows the text and, despite maintaining autonomy for the reader, tolhe-o to ask about something. Finally, there does not exist any text that raises the objections. E elas são tão boas eo autor as respond tão bem! It will be all right, or the reader will naturally oil argumentation, precisely because his semiotic personage is olive. It is or what the author expects. The authors also place no text in this way. Fora dele, são um grupo de homens e mulheres (six, not the case of a device that Latour studies). But not text, only vague entities, defined in the primeira pessoa do plural. Isso anonymous guarantor,or to suggest that Natureza is offered to any um. It is not that "João viu X", it is that "vê-se X". Not that "Pedro and Paulo will notice that x", but "we notice that x". E assim by diante. There are authors within the text that present the non-text world to a non-text reader. He or the reader identifies himself with all that scenography (staging foi translated here by «encenação», which is not a melhor solution, so it is a resounding phrase of 'enganação' and that is absolutely not the case; no one is consciously deceiving any), então o argument is true. Or scientific artigo is precisely a peça literária in which this type of attack occurs.There are authors within the text that present the non-text world to a non-text reader. He or the reader identifies himself with all that scenography (staging foi translated here by «encenação», which is not a melhor solution, so it is a resounding phrase of 'enganação' and that is absolutely not the case; no one is consciously deceiving any), então o argument is true. Or scientific artigo is precisely a peça literária in which this type of attack occurs.There are authors within the text that present the non-text world to a non-text reader. He or the reader identifies himself with all that scenography (staging foi translated here by «encenação», which is not a melhor solution, so it is a resounding phrase of 'enganação' and that is absolutely not the case; no one is consciously deceiving any), então o argument is true. Or scientific artigo is precisely a peça literária in which this type of attack occurs.Or scientific artigo is precisely a peça literária in which this type of attack occurs.Or scientific artigo is precisely a peça literária in which this type of attack occurs.
Topic 3: Captação
Three days presented, he is on the run. Let's just say that it is an exercer algum control over or text flow. Or the reader should feel free to disagree (he or she will not feel challenged by a pseudo-argument), but not free or enough to escape the text. For this to happen, it is necessary for the author to enclose all of them. Assim, or lector tera alguma liberdade, but within a limited space. Isso reinforces the conviction that leitura can provoke. Whether or not he was controlled by the reader (he was on the track where he was running for the first time) and he could be convinced, but with the feeling that he was forced to conclude. If you follow a long track, you will be convinced and feel that, despite the many alternatives, that chegou is the same to Melhor.
Nesse ponto (p. 98), Latour defends a holism forte:
"When this result is reached - or that it is very rare - I say it is a logical text. Assim as the scientific and technical adjectives, it seems that the logical adjective many times indicates a type of different illogical literature, written by people of different mentality, according to different methods or more rigorous patterns. But there is no absolute distinction between logical and illogical texts; It has a whole range of nuances that depends on both the reader and the author ». Neste ponto, citei para los alunos Quine e sua «maxima da mutilação minim». Vejo um dragão na janela. I conclude that my view is ruim, or that there are dragons, or that there is a pious of someone who is arming against me, or that there are other dimensions that interfere with this and for some passagem and dragons? Whether or not it depends will depend on how much you are epistemic rede.It is only possible for it to be a peripheral affirmation or it is possible to go to the center: it is possible to avoid biology, physics and, not limit, logic. It all depends on how much you are willing to sacrifice. This is the Quinean maxim that guarantees a privileged position makes sense. Ela é inquestionável (ou quase) because questioná-la teria um custo muito elevated for all to rede.
Nessa height, Latour chega à sua
SECOND METHODOLOGICAL REGRA (p. 99):
"We must not seek the intrinsic qualities of any affirmation, but all the transformations so that she spends more time in later days."
The conclusion of the chapter, or the author, gives three possible alternatives through a scientific text: desistência, adesão ou inquiguação.
Na primeira, or text will be abandoned.
The second, paradoxically, also, pois or conhecimento that contributes will be incorporated into instruments, not context.
In the third, it will be necessary to face or author in another field: in the field of references or non-laboratory. That is what he teaches below from the book.
Before concluding, Latour remarks regarding scientific rhetoric that the different antiquity (ou, daquela that with the least difficulty we call "rhetoric", which is normally not used in any scientific context, except pejoratively) for using any other external allies, for mobilizing em um só ponto muito more resources than other rhetoric or fazem (p. 102).
Given or the author's expense for causing shocks, he affirms, not the end of this chapter, that scientific literature is different from the common one because it is more intellectual and, therefore, less social. More for being paroxistically social. Nenhuma outra é tão tangled, nenhuma mobilizes as many actors (semiotics ou apparently not, as "a Natureza"). «A distinction between the technical literature and the rest of the work of natural fronteiras; These are frontiers raised by a disproportionate amount of them, resources and allies available. It is difficult to read and analyze this literature not because it escapes all of you sociais normais, but because it is the most social that the sociais links considered normais ». (p. 104)
Chapter 2: Laboratories Part A: Two texts to coisas: showing the letters
I know that it is discordant to continue doubting the scientist, or boss and go to the laboratory after checking the results. Latour assembles or the fictional case of a discordant person who goes to or from the laboratory in which there are some experiences that are intended to purify an endorphin.
To test the presence of a drug produced from the hair of the brain, scientists, primeiro, fazem, brain extracts from camundongos. Depois, separam esses extracts in sephadex columns. Each fração is stored in a bottle and tested in a device.
Or such aparelho consists of a cuba with a strip of ileum from cobaia prey to two eletrodes. As this muscle has a regular contraction pattern, it is easy to measure or effect any thing on it, it is enough to observe how the physiographer shows the variations from the normal oscillation.
A questão agora é: o discordante não passou do text à natureza (when it is presented, still no text, a graphic) and, as a visit to the laboratory, it represents the direct nature (or graphic) à natureza mesmo. The only pass from a list of figures and figures to a list of equipment that produces inscriptions that need to be interpreted. "Or graphic, which was the most concrete and visual element of the text, now it is the most abstract and textual element and a stunning array of equipment" (p. 110).
Or a case in which it is mapped to consider many topical issues:
- I always experiment with a complex that is complex with a caixa pretabom that functions with the complex and is attached to its own hair that is successful or that is produced by an inscription that needs to be ruled out by a voice-carrier and a voice-over and a scientist.
Or an example teaches Latour to define the essential points of the chapter: instruments and spokespersons.
(p. 396)
As ways are explained with four characteristics in Latour, it is proposed to be defined as "grão de verdade" that exists in each uma:
| transcendentalism | conferem um unexpected supplement and therefore seems to come from another world |
| empiricism | It is the result of concrete work of purification, being related to practical things. |
| social determinism | são ainda mais sociais que a sociedade pois concentram muitas associações |
| conventionalism | They establish connections between many other elements, or that would make people feel that they were more real (or, perhaps, less conventional) than other types of ferramentas. |
Ou seja, all those characteristics expressam something of which are only scientific theories, but all of them can be explained from the work of queue, inscription and representations of n order.
At this point, Latour points to the lack of an anthropological study of formalism and attributes isso to an easy-to-consider alternative or formalism resulting from superior cognitive abilities. Então, propõe sua
SEVENTH METHODOLOGICAL REGRA: a moratória for cognitive explanations for science and technology.
This is different from previous days, because it is possible that everything or was shown in "Ciência em Ação" is wrong. It is about a challenge and a program.
Latour also gives examples in which this "fora" is apparent. Alan Shepard repeated his voo dozens of times em terra before climbing. It is because you are all right, I do not space. It is that the fora had been traced for the laboratory and the foram techniques adapted to that "fora" traced. Feito isso, it is clear that such things must be true. And, when it was wrong, it was wrong in detail.
Another example of "la fora" that was not given by an experiment carried out by Pasteur em uma fazenda. Pasteur affirms that, after some days of administering a cow, or a group of vaccinated animals will resist, the group that is not vaccinated will die. But he knows that this is not going to work in one of his fazendas, in which many other fathers we will destroy the results. Or what face? It transforms to fazenda em um laboratório, sending for the assistants, before the experiment "no field", to alter everything or that could catch the dice, but taking care of many appearances, so that the experiment is convincing.
Disso, Latour concluded, that theories are frágeis and that, despite disso, copper or world. More like cupins, which live in cupinzeiros are very extensive: it does not matter to extension, since cupim trafegue inside a gallery. A ciência reaches all in this society, but it is only because the galleries advance on all sides. A sociedade em essa ciência atua já não é «lá fora». When isso (a ciência fora da rede, or cupim fora da galeria he built) happens, tudo falha.
Let's see an excellent analogy. What is the use of a map when we are out in the open?
We can't, no matter how different it is or map, confront it with nature "lá fora".
We confront or map with a truly devolved world (plates, frames, lights etc.).
Confronted with nature (da qual, supposedly, fala) or map and useless.
_________________________________________________
Some themes for monographs:
- Or what is the philosophy of science for Latour? Latour disagrees or teaches a theory about science? The theory (is) of Latour and empirical? Or what, refutaria, ent? Qual or statute two examples in "Ciência em Ação"? These are the essentials for a understanding of whether or not the power could be summarized in the lists of principles and principles. (5) What tie Latour can follow the scientists, sem pré-juízos, sendo, ele mesmo, cientista?
