Book: Bruno Latour “Pasteur. War and peace of microbes. With the Irreducible application. And war, and peace, and germs
Available in formats: EPUB | PDF | FB2
Pages: 320
The year of publishing: 2015
Language: Russian
The book by the famous French epistemologist, philosopher, sociologist, anthropologist and historian of science Bruno Latour addresses one of the most striking episodes in the history of science - the discovery of the pasteurization method and the victory over infectious diseases. The name is Louis Pasteur! known to every schoolchild today, has become a symbol of the triumph of the human mind over nature. Bruno Latour offers a new look at the mechanisms of social consciousness that made possible both this victory and the incredible rise of Pasteur himself. Pasteurization appears here not just as one of the methods of preserving food, but as a political gesture that allows a group of technocratic scientists to gain unprecedented power over the entire Western civilization, and as a technology of power, which consists in, representing on behalf of invisible agents, becoming indispensable a mediator between them and humanity. Thus, Latour's book allows us to see Pasteur as a figure of political magnitude, and science as a field of primarily political action. The book consists of two parts, the first is about Pasteur itself, the second is a philosophical exposition of the research methodology.
Reviews
Vsevolod, Tomsk, 22.07.2017
I was looking for an interesting book by Pasteur. War and peace of microbes. With the "Irreducible" application, I found it here. Fast and free download. The book is read in one sitting.
Marina, Ulyanovsk, 16.05.2017
I heard something about your site from colleagues. Someone downloaded specialist literature from you. I soon forgot about it until I decided to download something for the trip. And when it came up in the search, I remembered) “Pasteur. War and the World of Microbes. With the “Irreducible” application” I downloaded. I went on a business trip with 3 more books from you. You just need to enter the code and that’s it. I didn't pay anything by the way.
Those who viewed this page were also interested in:
|
|
|
|
FAQ
1. Which book format should I choose: PDF, EPUB or FB2?
It all depends on your personal preferences. Today, each of these types of books can be opened both on a computer and on a smartphone or tablet. All books downloaded from our website will open and look the same in any of these formats. If you don’t know what to choose, then choose PDF for reading on a computer, and EPUB for a smartphone.
3. Which program should you use to open the PDF file?
To open a PDF file, you can use the free Acrobat Reader program. It is available for download at adobe.com
|
Series: "Pragmatic Turn" The book by the famous French epistemologist, philosopher, sociologist, anthropologist and historian of science Bruno Latour addresses one of the most striking episodes in the history of science - the discovery of the pasteurization method and the victory over infectious diseases. The name of Louis Pasteur, known to every schoolchild today, has become a symbol of the triumph of the human mind over nature. Bruno Latour offers a new look at the mechanisms of social consciousness that made possible both this victory and the incredible rise of Pasteur himself. Pasteurization appears here not just as one of the methods of preserving food, but as a political gesture that allows a group of technocratic scientists to gain unprecedented power over the entire Western civilization, and as a technology of power, which consists in, representing on behalf of invisible agents, becoming indispensable a mediator between them and humanity. Publisher: "European University in St. Petersburg" (2015)
ISBN: 978-5-94380-197-6 |
Latour, Bruno
Bruno Latour(fr. Bruno Latour) - French sociologist of science and philosopher, author of such famous books as “There was no New Time. Essays in Symmetrical Anthropology,” “Laboratory Life,” and “Science in Action.”
Biography
Born on June 22, 1947 in Burgundy, into a family of winemakers. Received a philosophical and anthropological education. He lectured at the London School of Economics and at the Department of History of Science at Harvard University. Bruno Latour - PhD, associated with the Center for Organizational Sociology, vice-president of its research activities. He is the author of Laboratory Life (1979), The Pasteurization of France (1984), A Love of Technology and an Essay on Symmetrical Anthropology, There Was No New Time. In 1987, Latour published Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, one of the significant texts of sociology.
When Things Give Back: The Possible Contribution of “Science Research” to the Social Sciences
“Everything is going well with the social sciences, except for two tiny words: “social” and “sciences.”
Latour's definition of social science is “the study of science and technology” (STS). STS defines the objects of study of social sciences, as well as the methods of studying them - social interpretation. Latour identifies a number of difficulties associated with changing socially interpreted phenomena. The idea of social interpretation is “the replacement of the true content of an object with the functions of society,” and such replacement either destroys the object or ignores it. The peculiarity of social interpretation is to consider objects exclusively from the point of view of society, whereas “society does not explain anything, it itself must be explained.” Thus, Latour highlights the first difficulty of social interpretation: “to go beyond the social” in order to see the true essence of objects. However, with the disappearance of difficulties, as Latour writes, the very goals of the social sciences will disappear.
The second problem is the definition of science and the definition of the concept of society. Latour focuses on the imitation of the general sciences by the natural ones. However, the objects of study of both differ in the sense that in the natural sciences objects are not “just things”, but objects that exist objectively according to their internal natural laws, not subject to what the scientist says about them, and acting regardless of his expectations. And the object of social sciences is, first of all, people who are not always able to resist and “make concessions” to scientists. Latour calls this discrepancy between the interests of scientists and the behavior of natural objects that disobey them “science wars.” The reason for imitation of the natural sciences is the existence of the social sciences as having their “natural scientific counterpart” (except for sociology). Sociology was not included in this number, since it did not experience in the “pre-STS era” an internal conflict determined by the nature of the “thing”, as other sciences did, so Latour uses “social sciences” instead of the term “sociology”. The goal of imitation is “the gradual creation of a common world.”
Give me a laboratory and I'll change the world
Latour, in the article “Give me a laboratory and I will change the world,” analyzes the work of laboratories in a new sense, referring to the experiences and activities of Louis Pasteur, a French biologist who studied microorganisms that cause such a serious disease of livestock as anthrax - o which is what the sociologist writes.
Separating problems at the “micro” and “macro” levels, Latour says: “...there is a division of labor between students of organizations, institutions, and public strategy, on the one hand, and people studying disagreements at the micro levels within scientific disciplines, on the other. It is indeed difficult to discern common elements in the analysis of the laetrile controversy (Nelkin, 1979) and in the semiotic study of a single text (Bastide, 1981); in a study of indicators indicating growth in R&D and the history of the gravitational wave detector (Collins, 1975); or in investigating the Windscale reactor explosion and deciphering the inarticulate mutterings of scientists talking while sitting on a bench (Lynch, 1982)... It is so difficult to discern commonalities among these disparate topics that people are inclined to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of “macroscopic” problems and the need for separate consideration two levels of research carried out by scientists with different specializations using different methods."
First of all, Bruno Latour talks about the awareness of the hidden technological possibilities of research activities, as a result of which the functions of the laboratory change. They become the abode of applied science, that is, science focused on the creation and improvement of technologies. It is laboratories that act as the starting point of scientific and technological progress. At the same time, all research algorithms and their results, obtained and initially tested in the laboratory, are used not only to obtain new knowledge and develop new technologies, but also for practical service in many areas of activity, such as, for example, agriculture (which, in fact, , and is discussed in the article). Latour writes that scientists “will do everything in their power to spread everywhere some of the conditions conducive to the reproduction of favorable laboratory practices. Since scientific facts are produced inside laboratories, ensuring their free circulation requires the creation of expensive networks within which to maintain their fragile efficiency. If this means turning society into a big laboratory, then so be it. The spread of laboratories into areas that a few decades earlier had nothing to do with science is a good example of the construction of such networks” (Bruno Latour, “Give me a laboratory and I will change the world” pp. 27 - 28).
Once again raising the question of the “scientific nature” of science, Bruno Latour talks about the penetration of research into many areas of life, possible thanks to the improvement of technology. Thus, the article metaphorically presents discussions about the inextricable relationship between problems at the “micro” and “macro” levels, their interdependence, that is, the transition from one state to another along the path of development and resolution.
Politics of nature
The article focuses on the recently developed idea of political ecology, which has given rise to movements trying to establish concern for the environment as a fundamental political principle. There is stagnation in the practice of these movements, and B. Latour wanted to understand the very idea of political ecology in order to find out the reason for this outcome. In the process of this research, it turns out that political ecology, due to an undeveloped theoretical framework, is mistaken regarding its real activities. Caring for nature is not really her area of expertise for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that politics cannot protect the interests of nature, since it was originally created to protect the interests of man and it is he who is considered the subject. It can protect nature only by endowing it with subjective qualities and natural rights that previously belonged only to man: this leads to absurdity. The second reason is that political ecology considers the real interests of nature and nature itself as a phenomenon accessible to the direct understanding of man, whereas in fact it deals only with the scientific interpretation of the phenomenon of nature. Therefore, conversations about global natural crises are always subjective, concerned with particulars and have no real basis. The significance of political ecology is that it reveals the contrast between clear, well-defined scientific concepts and unpredictable, beyond these concepts, real-world phenomena in all their complex internal relationships.
|
Manufacturer: "European University Publishing House in St. Petersburg" Series: "Pragmatic Turn" The book by the famous French epistemologist, philosopher, sociologist, anthropologist and historian of science Bruno Latour addresses one of the most striking episodes in the history of science - the discovery of the pasteurization method and the victory over infectious diseases. The name is Louis Pasteur! known to every schoolchild today, has become a symbol of the triumph of human reason over nature. Bruno Latour offers a new look at the mechanisms of social consciousness that made possible both this victory and the incredible rise of Pasteur himself. Pasteurization appears here not just as one of the methods of preserving food, but as a political gesture that allows a group of scientific technocrats to gain unprecedented power over the entire Western civilization, and as a technology of power, which consists in representing, on behalf of invisible agents, to become an indispensable mediator between them and humanity. Thus, Latour's book allows us to see Pasteur as a figure of political scale, and science as a field of predominantly political action. The book consists of two parts, the first about Pasteur itself, the second a philosophical exposition of the research methodology. Publisher: "European University Publishing House in St. Petersburg" (2015)
ISBN: 978-5-94380-197-6 |
Bruno Latour
Bruno Latour.
Biography
Born in, in a family of winemakers. Received a philosophical and anthropological education. He lectured at the London School of Economics and at the Department of History of Science. Bruno Latour - PhD, associated with the Center for Organizational Sociology, vice-president of its research activities. He is the author of Laboratory Life (1979), The Pasteurization of France (1984), A Love of Technology and an Essay on Symmetrical Anthropology, We Were Never Modern. In 1987, Latour published Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, one of the significant texts of sociology.
When Things Give Back: The Possible Contribution of “Science Research” to the Social Sciences
“Everything is going well with the social sciences, except for two tiny words: “social” and “sciences.”
Latour's definition of social science is “the study of science and technology” (STS). STS defines the objects of study of social sciences, as well as the methods of studying them - social interpretation. Latour identifies a number of difficulties associated with changing socially interpreted phenomena. The idea of social interpretation is “the replacement of the true content of an object with the functions of society,” and such replacement either destroys the object or ignores it. The peculiarity of social interpretation is to consider objects exclusively from the point of view of society, whereas “society does not explain anything, it itself must be explained.” Thus, Latour highlights the first difficulty of social interpretation: “to go beyond the social” in order to see the true essence of objects. However, with the disappearance of difficulties, as Latour writes, the very goals of the social sciences will disappear.
The second problem is the definition of science and the definition of the concept of society. Latour focuses on the imitation of the general sciences by the natural ones. However, the objects of study of both differ in the sense that in the natural sciences objects are not “just things”, but objects that exist objectively according to their internal natural laws, not subject to what the scientist says about them, and acting regardless of his expectations. And the object of social sciences is, first of all, people who are not always able to resist and “make concessions” to scientists. Latour calls this discrepancy between the interests of scientists and the behavior of natural objects that disobey them “science wars.” The reason for imitation of the natural sciences is the existence of the social sciences as having their “natural scientific counterpart” (except for sociology). Sociology was not included in this number, since it did not experience in the “pre-STS era” an internal conflict determined by the nature of the “thing”, as other sciences did, so Latour uses “social sciences” instead of the term “sociology”. The goal of imitation is “the gradual creation of a common world.”
Give me a laboratory and I'll change the world
Latour, in the article “Give me a laboratory and I will change the world,” analyzes the work of laboratories in a new sense, referring to the experiences and activities of Louis Pasteur, a French biologist who studied microorganisms that cause such a serious disease of livestock as anthrax - o which is what the sociologist writes.
Separating problems at the “micro” and “macro” levels, Latour says: “...there is a division of labor between students of organizations, institutions, and public strategy, on the one hand, and people studying disagreements at the micro levels within scientific disciplines, on the other. It is indeed difficult to discern common elements in the analysis of the laetrile controversy (Nelkin, 1979) and in the semiotic study of a single text (Bastide, 1981); in a study of indicators indicating growth in R&D and the history of the gravitational wave detector (Collins, 1975); or in investigating the Windscale reactor explosion and deciphering the inarticulate mutterings of scientists talking while sitting on a bench (Lynch, 1982)... It is so difficult to discern commonalities among these disparate topics that people are inclined to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe existence of “macroscopic” problems and the need for separate consideration two levels of research carried out by scientists with different specializations using different methods."
First of all, Bruno Latour talks about the awareness of the hidden technological possibilities of research activities, as a result of which the functions of the laboratory change. They become the abode of applied science, that is, science focused on the creation and improvement of technologies. It is laboratories that act as the starting point of scientific and technological progress. At the same time, all research algorithms and their results, obtained and initially tested in the laboratory, are used not only to obtain new knowledge and develop new technologies, but also for practical service in many areas of activity, such as, for example, agriculture (which, in fact, , and is discussed in the article). Latour writes that scientists “will do everything in their power to spread everywhere some of the conditions conducive to the reproduction of favorable laboratory practices. Since scientific facts are produced inside laboratories, ensuring their free circulation requires the creation of expensive networks within which to maintain their fragile efficiency. If this means turning society into a big laboratory, then so be it. The spread of laboratories into areas that a few decades earlier had nothing to do with science is a good example of the construction of such networks” (Bruno Latour, “Give me a laboratory and I will change the world” pp. 27 - 28).
Once again raising the question of the “scientific nature” of science, Bruno Latour talks about the penetration of research into many areas of life, possible thanks to the improvement of technology. Thus, the article metaphorically presents discussions about the inextricable relationship between problems at the “micro” and “macro” levels, their interdependence, that is, the transition from one state to another along the path of development and resolution.
Politics of nature
The article focuses on the recently developed idea of political ecology, which has given rise to movements trying to establish concern for the environment as a fundamental political principle. There is stagnation in the practice of these movements, and B. Latour wanted to understand the very idea of political ecology in order to find out the reason for this outcome. In the process of this research, it turns out that political ecology, due to an undeveloped theoretical framework, is mistaken regarding its real activities. Caring for nature is not really her area of expertise for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that politics cannot protect the interests of nature, since it was originally created to protect the interests of man and it is he who is considered the subject. It can protect nature only by endowing it with subjective qualities and endowing it with natural rights that previously belonged only to man: this leads to absurdity. The second reason is that political ecology considers the real interests of nature and nature itself as a phenomenon accessible to the direct understanding of man, whereas in fact it deals only with the scientific interpretation of the phenomenon of nature. Therefore, conversations about global natural crises are always subjective, concerned with particulars and have no real basis. The significance of political ecology is that it reveals the contrast between clear, well-defined scientific concepts and unpredictable, beyond these concepts, real-world phenomena in all their complex internal relationships.