Posting 4/6

I found the Latour reading to be really interesting especially in conjunction with a class I took last semester on the social construction of knowledge. I found that there were often arguments about meaning and knowledge, similar to Latour's ideas and criticisms. I'm still not 100% sure what my feelings are on whether something has meaning before its defined. Latour infers that relativism in science is obsolete because science is predicated on objectivity, and yet relativism tells us there's no such thing as objectivity. Latour then argues that knowledge must have objective principals because we have to be basing our subjectivity on something. He also seems quite set on combating skepticism of science, and rather looking at it as an ongoing map of theories through time.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what to make of all this. I innately think in terms of relativism, and I find Latour to be non-linear and confusing and so I don't know if I agree or disagree with him. I think claiming that science has no need for epistemological theory is kind of strange. Although I'm not even sure he was claiming that. What I do understand and agree with is the idea of science as a network, that builds,change, and rectifies itself through time. That's why I think the exhibits at the museum that comment on the history of the object as well as the science tend to be more comforting. All in all I agree with Kevin that Latour is making a seemingly over complex argument for I guess the separation of skepticism and scientific discovery.