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...
| Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
|---|---|
| Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονικά/Εκτύπωση Άρθρο |
| Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
| Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Φόρτωση...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Έκδοση: |
Joint Publ. Board of Zygon through Blackwell, Oxford
2014
|
| Στο/Στη: |
Zygon
Έτος: 2014, Τόμος: 49, Τεύχος: 4, Σελίδες: 890-903 |
| Τυποποιημένες (ακολουθίες) λέξεων-κλειδιών: | B
Latour, Bruno 1947-2022
/ Barbour, Ian G. 1923-2013
/ Stenmark, Mikael 1962-
/ Θρησκεία
/ Φυσικές επιστήμες (μοτίβο)
|
| Σημειογραφίες IxTheo: | AB Φιλοσοφία της θρησκείας, Κριτική της θρησκείας, Αθεϊσμός |
| Διαθέσιμο Online: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Παράλληλη έκδοση: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή
|
| Σύνοψη: | 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 |
| Περιλαμβάνει: | In: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12129 |