On Post-Modernist Philosophy of Science (2000)
The discussion near the end of Philip Scranton was the most interesting and coherent part of the article for me, while earlier Dutch is mostly just incredulous about the words used by Latour and Derrida.<p>I think he makes a good point about a mutual misunderstanding:<p>&gt; The history of science as presented in science texts, especially older ones, is rightly unsatisfactory to sociologists. In the interests of providing students with a heuristic framework (frequently a historical approach is the best way to explain a complex concept) and a sense of historical orientation, the accounts were streamlined to the point where they presented a highly linear view of science devoid of false starts, blind alleys, and personality clashes. The reason textbooks do it perhaps a tad better than they used to, by the way, is partly due to the insights of sociologists.<p>&gt; Sociologists, on the other hand, need to realize that the way <i>they</i> present the history of science can seem just as distorted. However honorable their intent, their language <i>seems</i> at times to deny the existence of objective knowledge.