attempts against biased interpretation

.. come also from another side as a critical attitude towards a definition and understanding of the science (if I read it here simply as the bigger brother of tech) nowadays still understood as an almost untouchable paradigma for the establishment of ‘truth/reality’.

Stengers wants to understand science in the specificity of its practices, and thereby to reject its transcendent claims, its claims to foundational status which are always made by detaching it from its actual, concrete practices. She defines her own approach as, philosophically, a “constructivist” one.
The point of the constructivist approach is to see how these differences work, without thereby asserting that scientific objects are therefore objective, and out there in the world, while all the other sorts of objects would be merely subjective or imaginary or irrational or just inside our heads. The point is not to say that scientific objects are “socially constructed” rather than “objectively true,” but precisely to get away from this binary alternative, when it comes to considering either scientific practices and objects, or (for instance) religious practices and objects.

The other pillar of Stengers’ approach is what she calls an “ecology of practices.” This means considering how particular practices — the practices of science, in particular — impinge upon and relate to other practices that simultaneously exist. This means that the question of what science discovers about the world cannot be separated from the question of how science impinges upon the world.

She [Stengers] seeks, rather, through constructivism and the ecology of practices, to offer what might be called (following Deleuze) an entirely immanent critique, one that is situated within the very field of practices that it is seeking to change.

Stengers points to recent developments in studies of emergence and complexity as possibly pointing to a renovation of scientific thought, but she warns against the new-agey or high-theoretical tendency many of us outside the sciences have to proclaim a new world-view by trumpeting these scientific results as evidence: which means both translating scientific research into “theory” way too uncritically, and engaging in a kind of Kantian critique, instead of remaining within the immanence of the ecology of actual practices, with the demands they make and the obligations they impose.

read on here

I am not really recalling how I came across this elder post on pinocchio theory now – it just fits to the former and reminded me at the same time of the material rich posts on Anne Galloway’s teaching blogs also relating to the books and interpretation of Stengers:

For Stengers, the objective of studying science as culture and practice is to “articulate what we mean by science and what we mean by politics, and how the two shape and are shaped by each other”.

.. which links in a certain way to the still unpublished catalogue of ‘Making Things Public‘ …

Print Friendly, PDF & Email