Scan barcode
undviklundvik's review against another edition
2.0
Stundvis intressant perspektiv, men överlag dåliga argument tycker jag.
premxs's review against another edition
5.0
hard to read and trul process, but a wealth of knowledge here on the construction of (scientific) knowledge, focused on its anthropological aspects. found the idea of recording scientific observations and the methods of producing knowledge as literary inscription to be fascinating and useful, enraptured by the overarching theme of science being formulated through the decisions and circumstances of the scientists.
jasminenoack's review against another edition
4.0
This book is not a fast read. It should be, there is in fact no reason it couldn't be more interesting. I say this first because I have read several books on similar subjects that were and second because when I could force myself to stay awake and read it the content was interesting once you could get through the dull writing style. Also I've skimmed some of the author's other work and it is far more interesting.
I was assigned 3 chapters of this book for a class but I instead read the entire book. I'm glad I did because a lot of the book assumes that you have read the rest (a reasonable assumption) and states things like "as shown in chapter 2". At least once he alluded to a term previously expanded upon which he never used in the previous discussion of it. An important lesson define terms the first time around or no one can figure out what you are alluding to.
I wouldn't recommend this book not because it's terrible (it's average) but because there are far better sources of information out there on the same topic.
The only time I was excited by this book was on page 256 when he quotes "the observer" as saying:
"In order to redress this imbalance, we would require about a hundred observers of this one setting, each with the same power over their subjects as you have over your animals. In other words, we should have TV monitoring in each office; we should be able to bug the phones and the desks; we should have complete freedom to take EEGs; and we would reserve the right to chop of participants' heads when internal examination was necessary. With this kind of freedom we could produce hard data."
I was assigned 3 chapters of this book for a class but I instead read the entire book. I'm glad I did because a lot of the book assumes that you have read the rest (a reasonable assumption) and states things like "as shown in chapter 2". At least once he alluded to a term previously expanded upon which he never used in the previous discussion of it. An important lesson define terms the first time around or no one can figure out what you are alluding to.
I wouldn't recommend this book not because it's terrible (it's average) but because there are far better sources of information out there on the same topic.
The only time I was excited by this book was on page 256 when he quotes "the observer" as saying:
"In order to redress this imbalance, we would require about a hundred observers of this one setting, each with the same power over their subjects as you have over your animals. In other words, we should have TV monitoring in each office; we should be able to bug the phones and the desks; we should have complete freedom to take EEGs; and we would reserve the right to chop of participants' heads when internal examination was necessary. With this kind of freedom we could produce hard data."
mburnamfink's review against another edition
4.0
Latour manages a book that is both highly theoretical and intensely detailed. Written at one of the high points of the post-modern turn in STS, and deeply involved in the Strong Programme to explain successful and unsuccessful science in the same way, Laboratory Life shows how abstruse theory and ethnography can mutually support each other. Latour spent 21 months as a participant-observer in a neuro-endocrinology lab, and from his time develops a comprehensive picture of the scientific process as an act of rhetorical destruction--eliminating alternatives until only one is left, scientists as economic-strategic actors seeking to increase their stock of 'credit' in the community, and science as a difficult struggle to make Order out of Chaos.
It's interesting seeing the evolution of Latour's thought from Laboratory Life to Science in Action to We Have Never Been Modern. You see facticity as an historical construct assembled out of a whole textus of inscriptions, but the later Latour dropped the idea of 'credit' as a reward (perhaps it is not analytic enough, but to me, it does describe the difference between a decent scholar and great one), and the whole notion of We Have Never Been Modern, that the Enlightenment goal of separating the world of science from the world of politics, and the world of humans from the world of nature is doomed to failure, is not yet evident. Though Latour still makes it very clear how contextual science is, in this book at least, he seems to believe that the work of science might yet succeed in making the entire world legible.
It's interesting seeing the evolution of Latour's thought from Laboratory Life to Science in Action to We Have Never Been Modern. You see facticity as an historical construct assembled out of a whole textus of inscriptions, but the later Latour dropped the idea of 'credit' as a reward (perhaps it is not analytic enough, but to me, it does describe the difference between a decent scholar and great one), and the whole notion of We Have Never Been Modern, that the Enlightenment goal of separating the world of science from the world of politics, and the world of humans from the world of nature is doomed to failure, is not yet evident. Though Latour still makes it very clear how contextual science is, in this book at least, he seems to believe that the work of science might yet succeed in making the entire world legible.
chloorine's review against another edition
3.0
Intéressant mais un peu laborieux à lire.
Le chapitre sur la construction des faits m'a particulièrement intéressée.
Le chapitre sur la construction des faits m'a particulièrement intéressée.
More...