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...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Numérique/imprimé Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Joint Publ. Board of Zygon through Blackwell, Oxford
2014
|
| Dans: |
Zygon
Année: 2014, Volume: 49, Numéro: 4, Pages: 890-903 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Latour, Bruno 1947-2022
/ Barbour, Ian G. 1923-2013
/ Stenmark, Mikael 1962-
/ Religion
/ Sciences de la nature
|
| Classifications IxTheo: | AB Philosophie de la religion |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Édition parallèle: | Électronique
|
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | In: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12129 |