Response to Latour

I enjoyed Latour’s initial premise for the article, questioning the different timelines of the progression of science. It is important to view scientific progression, particularly in evolution, as two timelines: one that a shows how certain aspects of nature have changed over time, and the other that demonstrates in which order we gained the knowledge that allowed us to alter our perception of that change. The first is the closest to an objective view of the world as can be, but in its inseparability from the second, it can never be thought of as actually objective. Instead of thinking as our understanding of nature’s progression as an absolute truth, it is instead a progression of theories that continually are able to describe as much of nature as well as possible. However, Latour raises the issue of whether microbes existed before their discovery, and if so, how. This immediately seems to be a ridiculous question given the knowledge that we have now. How he treats the question is absurd, as he gives to two options as “They were sitting there, waiting to be known,” and “They date from the moment when philosophers or the scientists designate them.” These answers are directed at two different questions, as they pertain to the separate timelines of knowledge shown previously. The first relates to how nature existed in its own progression. The second is falsely conflating our knowledge of them with their very existence. These two ideas run parallel, as our awareness of the microbes is only that which allows further study said microbes, therefore allowing us to better understand their existence previous to our discovery of them. However, as knowledge is never absolute, and objective understanding is really just the progression or more and more effective theories, scientific progression has to be viewed as the both of these answers together. Latour, to me, seems to overcomplicate this idea, but to delve into that would take entirely too much time for this post.