In a new introduction, the authors describe how science and its social context were understood when this book was first published, and how the study of the history of science has changed since then.

From the book: What is to be done with political ecology? Nothing. What is to be done? Political ecology!

L'ambition de ce livre, et elle est grande, est de faire vivre à son lecteur, qu'il soit ou non philosophe, le trajet fulgurant qui, en quelques années, a transformé le mathématicien Alfred North Whitehead en philosophe spéculatif. De la pierre grise que je vois là jusqu'à la création du Dieu qu'exige la cohérence spéculative, il s'agit bel et bien de cette " libre et sauvage création de concepts " associée à la philosophie anglaise par Deleuze et Guattari dans Qu'est-ce que (...) la philosophie? Mais " sauvage " signifie d'abord ici l'humour d'une mise à l'aventure de tous les " nous savons bien " qui rassurent, et l'expérimentation tranquille des concepts qui portent à leur plus haut degré, pour les faire converger, liberté et contrainte, audace et obligation. De l'aventure, nul ne devrait ramener une doctrine ou un mode de pensée unanime ; plutôt, différent pour chacun, un certain goût pour les questions qui mettent en risque, et une grande indifférence aux mots d'ordre qui prétendent nous dire comment penser. (shrink)

The way different medical practices differently construct their object.

Pour la médecine occidentale moderne, l'affaire est entendue : c'est le médicament qui soigne, à savoir une substance chimique aux effets biologiques bien identifiés. Pourtant, une médecine peut en cacher une autre : tous les patients savent intuitivement que l'attitude du thérapeute à leur égard peut être aussi décisive dans la guérison que les médicaments qu'il délivre. Et sans même qu'il soit nécessaire d'évoquer les " médecines parallèles ", le mystère scientifique que représente l'effet placebo témoigne de la persistance des (...) phénomènes de suggestion au cœur de la médecine moderne. Dans ce livre, Philippe Pignarre propose une compréhension nouvelle de cette dualité que la science résiste à reconnaître. Il le fait en se penchant sur l'histoire, et plus précisément sur l'histoire de la psychiatrie, en suivant les deux " fils rouges " : d'une part, celui qui court du "baquet" autour duquel, à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, Mesmer rassemblait ses patients pour les " magnétiser ", jusqu'à la psychanalyse, en passant par les cures hypnotiques de Charcot ; et, d'autre part, celui qui relie l'invention par Pinel du " traitement moral " des aliénés à la psychiatrie biologique d'aujourd'hui. Il montre ainsi comment la médecine de la suggestion et la médecine somatique n'ont jamais réussi à faire bloc. Et que cette séparation pourrait bien être à l'origine des plus graves difficultés auxquelles se heurte la médecine moderne, qu'il s'agisse de l'usage des drogues illégales et de son " traitement ", ou de la surconsommation de psychotropes, dont la France détient le record mondial. L'auteur ouvre ainsi des pistes passionnantes pour retrouver dans notre héritage occidental - mais aussi, grâce à l'éthnopsychiatrie, dans celui d'autres civilisations - les éléments qui permettront de ne plus construire les deux médecines l'une contre l'autre. (shrink)

"The Invention of Modern Science proposes a fruitful way of going beyond the apparently irreconcilable positions, that science is either "objective" or "socially constructed." Instead, suggests Isabelle Stengers, one of the most important and influential philosophers of science in Europe, we might understand the tension between scientific objectivity and belief as a necessary part of science, central to the practices invented and reinvented by scientists."--pub. desc.

Bruno Latour was once asked : "Do you believe in reality?" This text is an attempt to answer this question.

In this powerful work of conceptual and analytical originality, the author argues for the primacy of the material arrangements of the laboratory in the dynamics of modern molecular biology. In a post-Kuhnian move away from the hegemony of theory, he develops a new epistemology of experimentation in which research is treated as a process for producing epistemic things. A central concern of the book is the basic question of how novelty is generated in the empirical sciences. In addressing this question, (...) the author brings French poststructuralist thinking—notably Jacques Derrida’s concepts of “différance” and “historiality”—to bear on the construction of epistemic things. Historiographical perspective shifts from the actors’ minds to their objects of manipulation. These epistemological and historical issues are illuminated in a detailed case study of a particular laboratory, that of the oncologist and biochemist Paul C. Zamecnik and his colleagues, located in a specific setting—the Collis P. Huntington Memorial Hospital of Harvard University at the Massachusetts General Hospital of Boston. The author traces how, between 1945 and 1965, this group developed an experimental system for synthesizing proteins in the test tube that put Zamecnik’s research team at the forefront of those who led biochemistry into the era of molecular biology. (shrink)

Concerned with the interplay between science, society, and power, Isabelle Stengers offers a unique perspective on the power of scientific theories to modify society, and vice versa. 9 diagrams.

The study of conscious experience per se has not kept pace with the dramatic advances in PET, fMRI and other brain-scanning technologies. If anything, the standard approaches to examining the 'view from within' involve little more than cataloguing its readily accessible components. Thus the study of lived subjective experience is still at the level of Aristotelian science, leading to a widespread scepticism over the possibility of a truly scientific study of conscious experience. Drawing on a wide range of approaches -- (...) from phenomenology to meditation -- The View From Within examines the possibility of a disciplined approach to the study of subjective states. The focus is on the practical issues involved. (shrink)

One of our most brilliant evolutionary biologists, Richard Lewontin has also been a leading critic of those--scientists and non-scientists alike--who would misuse the science to which he has contributed so much. In The Triple Helix, Lewontin the scientist and Lewontin the critic come together to provide a concise, accessible account of what his work has taught him about biology and about its relevance to human affairs. In the process, he exposes some of the common and troubling misconceptions that misdirect and (...) stall our understanding of biology and evolution.The central message of this book is that we will never fully understand living things if we continue to think of genes, organisms, and environments as separate entities, each with its distinct role to play in the history and operation of organic processes. Here Lewontin shows that an organism is a unique consequence of both genes and environment, of both internal and external features. Rejecting the notion that genes determine the organism, which then adapts to the environment, he explains that organisms, influenced in their development by their circumstances, in turn create, modify, and choose the environment in which they live.The Triple Helix is vintage Lewontin: brilliant, eloquent, passionate, and deeply critical. But it is neither a manifesto for a radical new methodology nor a brief for a new theory. It is instead a primer on the complexity of biological processes, a reminder to all of us that living things are never as simple as they may seem. (shrink)

Especially troublesome in this dispute is the status of the natural sciences, and this is where Hacking finds some of his most telling cases, from the conflict ...