Testing Latour's app: a user's guide
I reconstruct Bruno Latour's ideas about science and religion and compare them to Ian G. Barbour's and Mikael Stenmark's models, as well as to the discussion of technology and religion developed by John C. Caiazza and Antje Jackelén. I show how using “Latour's App” enlightens som...
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo di documento: | Digitale/Stampa Articolo |
| Lingua: | Inglese |
| Verificare la disponibilità: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Caricamento...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Pubblicazione: |
Joint Publ. Board of Zygon through Blackwell, Oxford
2014
|
| In: |
Zygon
Anno: 2014, Volume: 49, Fascicolo: 4, Pagine: 890-903 |
| (sequenze di) soggetti normati: | B
Latour, Bruno 1947-2022
/ Barbour, Ian G. 1923-2013
/ Stenmark, Mikael 1962-
/ Religione
/ Scienze naturali
|
| Notazioni IxTheo: | AB Filosofia delle religioni |
| Accesso online: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Edizione parallela: | Elettronico
|
| Riepilogo: | I reconstruct Bruno Latour's ideas about science and religion and compare them to Ian G. Barbour's and Mikael Stenmark's models, as well as to the discussion of technology and religion developed by John C. Caiazza and Antje Jackelén. I show how using “Latour's App” enlightens some aspects of said models which Barbour and Stenmark themselves were seemingly struggling with, and that Caiazza's and Jackelén's views can be reconciled despite their apparent opposition. The result of such tests is an overall assessment of Latour's proposal. I argue that, under the disguise of a flamboyant and original language, Latour's method is not that distant from those of the other authors analyzed here, and that his discussion might conceal some unwelcome philosophical shortcomings. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0591-2385 |
| Comprende: | In: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12129 |