编造布鲁诺·拉图尔的真相(五)

Q3 Arts and Humanities
David Inglis, Anna-Mari Almila
{"title":"编造布鲁诺·拉图尔的真相(五)","authors":"David Inglis, Anna-Mari Almila","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_3_1143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his lifetime, Bruno Latour (1947-2022) made many provocative and controversial arguments, such as about the nature of the practices of the natural sciences, and against standard social scientific forms of critique. Running through many of Latour’s interventions, aimed at what he took to be stultifying forms of academic and intellectual orthodoxy, was a concern with the nature of truth. Whether emphasising how science fabricates its ‘facts’, or in having to deal with uncomfortable similarities between that sort of analysis and the attacks on the allegedly fraudulent nature of climate science by climate sceptics, or in presenting the societal bases of standard forms of social critique as fictitious, Latour was constantly engaged in battles about and polemics concerning what counts as truths and truthfulness. In this paper, we consider the nature of some of the main contours of Latour’s battles about and with truths. We present an account of his practice in a critical light. Sometimes that involves stepping outside of the ‘anti-critical’ frame of reference he sought to construct and impose on how philosophy, sociology and other ways of thinking are done, but it also sometimes involves using that apparatus, while turning it against the intentions of the author. The purpose of this paper is not to try out-do Latour in the dismissal of intellectual positions other than one’s own. Instead, we focus on other types and levels of failure in the career-long endeavours and engagements with matters of truth of this curious but undoubtedly unavoidable figure, ‘Bruno Latour’. We end by speculating if more ‘Bruno Latours’ will be fabricated in the service of new modes of truth-creation in the future.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"77 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fabricating the Truth About Bruno Latour(s)\",\"authors\":\"David Inglis, Anna-Mari Almila\",\"doi\":\"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_3_1143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In his lifetime, Bruno Latour (1947-2022) made many provocative and controversial arguments, such as about the nature of the practices of the natural sciences, and against standard social scientific forms of critique. Running through many of Latour’s interventions, aimed at what he took to be stultifying forms of academic and intellectual orthodoxy, was a concern with the nature of truth. Whether emphasising how science fabricates its ‘facts’, or in having to deal with uncomfortable similarities between that sort of analysis and the attacks on the allegedly fraudulent nature of climate science by climate sceptics, or in presenting the societal bases of standard forms of social critique as fictitious, Latour was constantly engaged in battles about and polemics concerning what counts as truths and truthfulness. In this paper, we consider the nature of some of the main contours of Latour’s battles about and with truths. We present an account of his practice in a critical light. Sometimes that involves stepping outside of the ‘anti-critical’ frame of reference he sought to construct and impose on how philosophy, sociology and other ways of thinking are done, but it also sometimes involves using that apparatus, while turning it against the intentions of the author. The purpose of this paper is not to try out-do Latour in the dismissal of intellectual positions other than one’s own. Instead, we focus on other types and levels of failure in the career-long endeavours and engagements with matters of truth of this curious but undoubtedly unavoidable figure, ‘Bruno Latour’. We end by speculating if more ‘Bruno Latours’ will be fabricated in the service of new modes of truth-creation in the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia\",\"volume\":\"77 5\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_3_1143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_3_1143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在他的一生中,布鲁诺·拉图尔(1947-2022)提出了许多具有挑衅性和争议性的论点,例如关于自然科学实践的本质,以及反对标准的社会科学批评形式。贯穿拉图的许多干预措施,针对他是百无一用的形式的正统学术和知识,是一个关心真理的本质。无论是强调科学是如何捏造“事实”的,还是必须处理这种分析与气候怀疑论者所谓的气候科学欺诈本质的攻击之间令人不安的相似之处,或者将标准形式的社会基础呈现为虚构的社会批评,拉图尔不断地参与关于什么是真理和真实性的战斗和论战。在本文中,我们考虑了拉图尔关于真理和与真理斗争的一些主要轮廓的本质。我们以批判的眼光来叙述他的实践。有时,这涉及到走出他试图构建并强加于哲学、社会学和其他思维方式的“反批判”参考框架,但有时也涉及到使用这种工具,同时将其与作者的意图背道而驰。本文的目的并不是要尝试像拉图尔那样,摒弃自己以外的知识分子立场。相反,我们关注的是布鲁诺·拉图尔(Bruno Latour)在他的职业生涯中所经历的其他类型和程度的失败,以及他对真相的探究。我们推测如果更多“布鲁诺拉图”都将在服务新模式的truth-creation在未来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fabricating the Truth About Bruno Latour(s)
In his lifetime, Bruno Latour (1947-2022) made many provocative and controversial arguments, such as about the nature of the practices of the natural sciences, and against standard social scientific forms of critique. Running through many of Latour’s interventions, aimed at what he took to be stultifying forms of academic and intellectual orthodoxy, was a concern with the nature of truth. Whether emphasising how science fabricates its ‘facts’, or in having to deal with uncomfortable similarities between that sort of analysis and the attacks on the allegedly fraudulent nature of climate science by climate sceptics, or in presenting the societal bases of standard forms of social critique as fictitious, Latour was constantly engaged in battles about and polemics concerning what counts as truths and truthfulness. In this paper, we consider the nature of some of the main contours of Latour’s battles about and with truths. We present an account of his practice in a critical light. Sometimes that involves stepping outside of the ‘anti-critical’ frame of reference he sought to construct and impose on how philosophy, sociology and other ways of thinking are done, but it also sometimes involves using that apparatus, while turning it against the intentions of the author. The purpose of this paper is not to try out-do Latour in the dismissal of intellectual positions other than one’s own. Instead, we focus on other types and levels of failure in the career-long endeavours and engagements with matters of truth of this curious but undoubtedly unavoidable figure, ‘Bruno Latour’. We end by speculating if more ‘Bruno Latours’ will be fabricated in the service of new modes of truth-creation in the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信