David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Human Studies 32 (2):153 - 181 (2009)
This article argues that understanding everyday practices in neurobiological labs requires us to take into account a variety of different action positions: self-conscious social actors, technical artifacts, conscious organisms, and organisms being merely alive. In order to understand the interactions among such diverse entities, highly differentiated conceptual tools are required. Drawing on the theory of the German philosopher and sociologist Helmuth Plessner, the paper analyzes experimenters as self-conscious social persons who recognize monkeys as conscious organisms. Integrating Plessner’s ideas into the stock of concepts used in science and technology studies provides richer descriptions of laboratory life. In particular, this theory allows an understanding of a crucial feature of neurobiological brain research: the construction of the brain as the epistemic object of brain research. As such, the brain must be isolated from the acting and interacting organism in a complicated process.
|Keywords||Actor Brain Epistemological object Human-monkey interaction Plessner Representation Second person perspective Science studies|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar (1982). Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 13 (1):166-170.
Bruno Latour (1994). On Technical Mediation. Common Knowledge 3 (2):29-64.
Walter Omar Kohan & David Knowles Kennedy (2015). Editorial. Childhood and Philosophy 11 (21):5-10.
Andrea Loettgers (2007). Getting Abstract Mathematical Models in Touch with Nature. Science in Context 20 (1):97.
Citations of this work BETA
Gesa Lindemann (2011). On Latour's Social Theory and Theory of Society, and His Contribution to Saving the World. Human Studies 34 (1):93-110.
Daniel Bischur (2011). Animated Bodies in Immunological Practices: Craftsmanship, Embodied Knowledge, Emotions and Attitudes Toward Animals. [REVIEW] Human Studies 34 (4):407-429.
Similar books and articles
Sheila McLean (2007). Impairment and Disability: Law and Ethics at the Beginning and End of Life. Routledge-Cavendish.
Max Velmans (2002). How Could Conscious Experiences Affect Brains? Journal of Consciousness Studies 9 (11):3-29.
Storrs McCall (2013). Does the Brain Lead the Mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86 (2):262-265.
Sabina Leonelli & Rachel Ankeny (2011). What’s so Special About Model Organisms? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):313-323.
Bernard J. Baars, Thomas Zoega Ramsoy & Steven Laureys (2003). Brain, Conscious Experience, and the Observing Self. Trends in Neurosciences 26 (12):671-5.
G. Northoff (2001). “Brain-Paradox” and “Embeddment” – Do We Need a “Philosophy of the Brain”? Brain and Mind 2 (2):195-211.
Henry P. Stapp (1997). Science of Consciousness and the Hard Problem. Journal of Mind and Behavior 18 (2-3):171-93.
Suresh D. Muthukumaraswamy & Blake W. Johnson (2007). A Dual Mechanism Neural Framework for Social Understanding. Philosophical Psychology 20 (1):43 – 63.
Joachim I. Krueger (2004). Experimental Psychology Cannot Solve the Problem of Conscious Will (yet We Must Try). Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (5):668-669.
Juha Tuunainen (2001). Constructing Objects and Transforming Experimental Systems. Perspectives on Science 9 (1):78-105.
Added to index2009-06-15
Total downloads28 ( #134,092 of 1,789,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #424,764 of 1,789,999 )
How can I increase my downloads?