The strong programme in the sociology of science has found an echo in France, particularly around Bruno Latour. His works contain a great number of propositions formulated so ambiguously that they can hardly be taken literally. And when one removes the ambiguity— as we shall do here in a few examples— one reaches the conclusion that the assertion is either true but banal, or else surprising but manifestly false.Naturally, the fawning interviewer in the LA RoB isn't tactless enough to bring that up, preferring softballs.
Latour starts off with Lovelock, who he claims to have read very carefully. He seems quite unaware that in 2010 Lovelock went Emeritus. But it turns out that Latour's aim is to contribute to a precise definition of Gaia as a political entity which is a stupid idea anyway.
Sociology of science
As the article keeps going back to, Latour is still doing sociology of science, and not saying anything new.
Is that it?
I scrolled down a bit further but failed to find anything interesting.
* Werner Krauss is a tosser.
* Leading Science and Technology Experts Named Breakthrough Senior Fellows, 2010.
* LaSi vs EcMd: round two.
* Laudato Si versus the Ecomodernists.
* Gaia 2.0: Could humans add some level of self-awareness to Earth’s self-regulation? Timothy M. Lenton and Bruno Latour via RS.