Hi
I would like to thank everyone who has sent me reference. I now have
enough. To Steve: If you only knew why I did send this request to
MERSENNE, you would understand.
Regards,
Steindór
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Fuller, Steve <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It would be fascinating to learn if Cozzoli's reference IS indeed news to some people on this list -- and if it is not news, whether it is still considered 'unorthodox', as Cozzoli himself suggests.
>
> My own view is that the Latour (and Woolgar!) reference should be obvious -- perhaps even taken for granted -- and his take on laboratory studies is the normal starting point, even if there are various disagreements down the line. In saying this, I don't mean to be endorsing the Latour-Woolgar line, simply its presumptive significance in the field.
>
> To me, Steindor's question sounds like something that could have been asked in earnestness maybe 25 years ago -- but now?!
> Surely, Google could get to Latour-Woolgar in a flash!
>
> I am not trying to pick a fight here, but I raise this more as a reality check about the historical self-consciousness of history of science as a field.
>
> Steve
>
> Steve Fuller
> Professor of Sociology
> University of Warwick
> Coventry CV4 7AL
> United Kingdom
> Phone +44 2476 523 940
>
> http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/sfuller/fullers_index
> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~sysdt/Index.html
> BLOG: 'Making the University Safe for Intellectual Life in the 21st Century'
> http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/swfuller/
> NEW BOOK (Autumn 2009): The Sociology of Intellectual Life -- The Career of the Mind In and Around the Academy (Sage). Save 50% order online at www.sagepub.co.uk quoting promo code UK09AF024. E-book also available at £24.95 (ISBN 978-1-84920-523-8)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Promoting discussion in the science studies community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daniele Cozzoli
> Sent: 22 September 2009 15:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Laboratory studies
>
> You probably already know Latour's un-orthodox view:
>
> Bruno Latour, Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts,
> Princeton University Press, 1986
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Viviane Quirke" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Laboratory studies
>
>
> As this may be of interest to all, can I suggest that thE replies are sent
> to Mersenne as well?
>
> Off the top of my head, in the history of medicine a classic and still
> very useful book, which should be widely available although it is not the
> journal or review article you request:
>
> A. Cunningham & Perry Wiilliams (eds), The Laboratory Revolution in
> Medicine (Cambridge: CUP, 1992).
>
> Viviane
>
> Dr Viviane Quirke
> RCUK Academic Fellow in 20th-century Biomedicine
> Centre for Health, Medicine and Society
> Oxford Brookes University
>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Can anyone direct me towards the relevant literature on laboratory
>> studies? As I am pressed for time I would prefer journal papers or
>> review articles that I can easily access. Please reply to me
>> personally: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steindór
>> --
>> Steindór J. Erlingsson
>> vísindasagnfræðingur/historian of science
>> http://www.raunvis.hi.is/~steindor/
>>
>> "My own view is that most psychiatric diagnoses are about as
>> scientifically meaningful as star signs ..." (Richard Bentall,
>> Doctoring the Mind, 2009: 110)
>>
>
--
Steindór J. Erlingsson
vísindasagnfræðingur/historian of science
Honorary Research Associate,
Dept. of Sci. and Tech. Studies, UCL
http://www.raunvis.hi.is/~steindor/
"My own view is that most psychiatric diagnoses are about as
scientifically meaningful as star signs ..." (Richard Bentall,
Doctoring the Mind, 2009: 110)
|