The contradictions and dangers of Bruno Latour’s conception of climate science

Disputatio 9 (13) (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article debunks Bruno Latour’s seemingly pro-scientific and well-intentioned posture. I briefly summarize Latour’s constructivist, relativist, hybridist, and mystic philosophy, insisting on his radicalization in his last two books. I show that Latour’s conception is akin to “pseudo-profound bullshit”, inasmuch as he tries to hide his mysticism behind the invocation of scientific facts. I then concentrate on Latour’s politicization of climate science, showing that it is: self-contradictory from an epistemological point of view, since it presupposes scientifically established facts while at the same time undermining their objectivity; counterproductive, and even dangerous, from the political point of view, since it recommends a full politicization of climate science and ignores its harmful effects. I conclude by advocating a distinction between science and politics, and by showing that Latour’s philosophy fosters our current post-truth predicament.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-09-15

Downloads
1,199 (#15,692)

6 months
421 (#3,942)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Philippe Stamenkovic
Uppsala University

References found in this work

The Politics of Expertise.Stephen P. Turner - 2013 - New York, USA: Routledge.
Reports.[author unknown] - 1908 - The Classical Review 22 (1):26-28.

Add more references