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...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electronic/Print Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Joint Publ. Board of Zygon through Blackwell, Oxford
2014
|
| En: |
Zygon
Año: 2014, Volumen: 49, Número: 4, Páginas: 890-903 |
| (Cadenas de) Palabra clave estándar: | B
Latour, Bruno 1947-2022
/ Barbour, Ian G. 1923-2013
/ Stenmark, Mikael 1962-
/ Religion
/ Natural sciences
|
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | AB Filosofía de la religión |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Parallel Edition: | Electrónico
|
| Sumario: | 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 |
| Obras secundarias: | In: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12129 |