Syllabus
NB: Rozpis četby může být podle aktuální potřeby semináře upraven. 16. 2. Tři úvody do semináře a ohlédnutí za Science Wars
Bruno Latour (2002): “Science wars: A dialogue.” Common Knowledge, 8 (1): 71-79 2. 3.
Bruno Latour (1995): “The ‘Pédofil’ of Boa Vista: A photo-philosophical montage.” Common Knowledge, 4 (1): 144-187. Převzato do Bruno Latour (1999): Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press - kap. 2: “Circulating reference”. 16. 3.
Bruno Latour (1999): Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press - kap. 4: “From fabrication to reality”. 30. 3.
Bruno Latour (1999): Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press - kap. 5: “The historicity of things” 13. 4. Setkání pracovních skupin:
(1) Latour vs. Bath
Callon, Michel & Latour, Bruno (1992). “Don't throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley.” In Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press, pp. 343-368.
(2) Latour vs. Bloor
- David Bloor, “Anti-Latour”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 30, n°1 (1999), pp. 81-112.
- Bruno Latour, “For Bloor and Beyond - a Reply to David Bloor's Anti-Latour.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30, n°1 (1999), pp.113-129.
(3) Latour vs. Schaffer
- Bruno Latour, “Postmodern? No Simply Amodern. Steps Towards an Anthropology of Science. An essay Review.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 21 (1990), pp. 145-171.
- Simon Schaffer, “The eighteenth Brumaire of Bruno Latour.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A. Vol. 22, issue 1 (1991), pp. 175-92. 27. 4. Latourův Einstein
Bruno Latour, “A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity”, Social Studies of Science 18, no. 2 (1988): 3-44. 11. 5. Závěry
Annotation
In 2022, the study of sociological texts empirically anchored in physics, and the parallel reading of their philosophical counterparts, led us to the conclusion that the subject of disputes between the “new” sociologists of science and philosophers (since the 1970s) was not so much science per se as its public image. When, at the very end of the 1970s, Bruno Latour enters what is then a predominantly British field, there is no doubt that he is sympathetic to the critical agenda of the sociology of scientific knowledge.
But this will not prevent him from making a radical attack on the fundamental conceptual foundation of the new sociology of science, which will ultimately shake up the entire sociological tradition. Has the philosophy of science managed to use this internal dispute of sociologists to its advantage?