Talk:David Bloor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article David Bloor, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

"David Bloor strongly disagreed with the ANT camp that human and non-humans should be treated in an equivalent manner"

It's not entirely clear from this sentence which side he did come down on.

Should it be

"David Bloor strongly disagreed with the ANT camp when they argued that human and non-humans should be treated in an equivalent manner"

or

"David Bloor strongly disagreed with the ANT camp, arguing that human and non-humans should be treated in an equivalent manner"

?

Reply from a reader who has read Bloor and the ANT literature: The first version is the correct meaning; this clarification has been made in the article.

Yes, although I don't think Bloor's main objection is them being treated in an "equivalent manner"; he more fundamentally objects to treating non-human influences at all in the sociology of scientific knowledge. In "Anti-Latour" he argues that to do so is a back-door way of bringing "objective truth" back into science and therefore objectionable, since allowing for the influence of non-humans on the content of scientific knowledge can be interpreted as admitting that scientific knowledge is in part influenced by an external-to-humans "real world". Bloor argues instead for a pure social-constructionist viewpoint in which the content of scientific knowledge is analyzed exclusively as the product of human actors. --Delirium (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)