Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies

Rating:
Summary: illustrates how far science studies has come
Review: An essential read for anyone who has followed the battles of "science studies." It is a pleasure to FINALLY see someone (Latour, no less) lay down their semantic weapons and attempt to write an honest essay (no sarcasm, word play, or back stab). Latour has long been at the forefront of science studies (and argument). But here we begin to see the emergence of a mature position, one that isn't afraid to look in the mirror or ask tough questions. The intro historical account won't win him any friends in philosophy departments, but that's not his audience this time around. Here we have good science written in an honest, practical, no-nonsense style. The fear and uncertainty of science studies being a "new" or (worse) "post" discipline has faded away. Now, the real work begins. And here is where we're lucky because bruno latour turns out to be a pretty good guide and everyone's ally.

Rating:
Summary: Great
Review: In my mind, Latour is THE person to read in this area. Most philosophy of science seems to be stuck in the analytic tradition, and Latour is one of the tickets out! You will enjoy this text more if you have a little bit of background in philosophy (or if you are aware of the "science wars"). That said, the prose is clear and readable, and this is a good introduction to the work of Latour and to science studies in general. One issue, however: Latour insists that he will outline a method by which the number and value of articulations (of a given theory) can be ascertained...where is this method?

Rating:
Summary: Those French Have a Different Word for Everything!
Review: In Pandora's Hope, Bruno Latour is resolute in his efforts to [1] understand the mire philosophers of language have found themselves in, and [2] move on past those chimeras of epistemological impossibilities toward a richer understanding of things by scrutinizing the very practice of science and shaking loose the foundations presupposed by realist and social constructivist frameworks. This review, I will admit, is overly preoccupied by Latour's handling of "language," but Pandora's Hope covers quite well a much broader breadth of philosophical inquiry than my particular esoteric interest lets on. But since that is where my particular interests lie, let it be said that at least as an extremely strong subtext, Latour, through an exploration of the reality of science studies, relentlessly pursues the concocted philosophic divide between the world and words, and attempts to set us afoot on a more fruitful conceptual path from the dead-end correspondence theory and the resulting materialist/relativist dichotomy. If all this sounds far too heady, blame me, not Latour: for his ability to summarize in an attempt to overcome the various sprawling philosophical puzzles, his writings have a refreshing narrative flow, subtle wit, and an underlying humility that is encouraging rather than intimidating for the reader. It's not "lite" reading, but for those up for the challenge, it will be a rewarding task.

Rating:
Summary: Latour for beginners
Review: Latour has written a clear introduction to his current position in the field of STS-studies. Chapter after chapter, patiently, he clarifies the basic premises of his work. Whatever one thinks about Latour's radical redifinition of the field of science and technology studies, this is an enjoyable book: clear and well written.

Rating:
Summary: Latour for beginners
Review: Latour has written a clear introduction to his current position in the field of STS-studies. Chapter after chapter, patiently, he clarifies the basic premises of his work. Whatever one thinks about Latour's radical redifinition of the field of science and technology studies, this is an enjoyable book: clear and well written.

Rating:
Summary: Yawn, once again
Review: LaTour should learn something about science before pontificating about it! Once again he displays only a shallow knowledge of science and tries again to place it on another coordinate grid. A real intellectual yawn.

Rating:
Summary: A book of outtakes
Review: This book is like the album that bands make to fill out their recording contracts, so they can move to another record label. Nothing very new here, except perhaps for the level of rambling that Harvard seems to tolerate in Latour. There are a couple decent stabs at explaining the metaphysical implications of actor-network theory. But frankly if it weren't so easy to slap some actor-network theory on a piece of ordinary empirical work to make it shimmer, I doubt that people would take this stuff so seriously. Historians of tomorrow will have a good laugh at our expense.

Rating:
Summary: Not One For The Purists
Review: You have to admire Bruno Latour's persistence in the face of often vicious misunderstanding of what he's about. In many ways the core insights he has brought to the study of science have been available to readers for almost 20 years, yet it is still necessary for him to constantly reframe arguments to try and get the points across. This book shows once again the profound seriousness of his philosophical approach, based in the work of Serres, Deleuze and Whitehead amongst many others, and yet it seems inevitable that its lucid style and empirical foundation will find 'academic' philosophers once again all at sea (and substituting the usual bile for genuine understanding). This is Latour at his most sober, pleading for common sense in an area that is surely the intellectual world's biggest reservoir of wishful mysticism - the relationship between representation and reality. It's not just philosophers who find this banal question interesting, but also scientists, who increasingly adopt the same impoverished schema as those in science studies have developed over the years to judge (not understand) what scientists do. This is one of the great strengths of Latour's book and overall approach, how he respects the work and procedures of both sides, using neither to be reductionist about the other. What emerges is a science fully implicated in the 'social' world, and a social world just as implicated in the world of facts and theories - no puritanical separation, but also not a simple reflection of one in the other either. It will confuse and anger philosophers and scientists alike, but only to the extent that they have disciplinary empires to protect - Latour is interested in the world, and not constant petty claims about who understands it best.