complexitystudies

I have lead many a discussion with constructivists – who deny that such a concept as “truth” exists. I understand and respect their motivation – a distrust of proclaimed truth, which is the hallmark of ideology.

I always say that truth in science is something different: while ideologists posit the truth (they already “have” it) and deduce everything else from this, scientists go in search of the truth – they try to wrestle the truth from observations and facts (and the methods by which facts are come by are carefully scrutinized); for a scientist, the truth is something to strive for, not something one possesses.

But truth is the goal of every self-respecting scientist, indeed, it is our motivation and driving force, and the ultimate measure by which we grade our results. One discards truth only to the detriment of the scientific undertaking as a whole.

To some satisfaction I have therefore read the below article, where Bruno Latour, one of the architects of social constructivism (one variant of the diverse forms of constructivism, although a moderate one) – questions the “deconstructionist” method and wonders if constructivists are fighting the right foe.

Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern by Bruno Latour

While we spent years trying to detect the real prejudices hidden behind the appearance of objective statements, do we have now to reveal the real objective and incontrovertible facts hidden behind the illusion of prejudices? And yet entire Ph.D programs are still running to make sure that good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always the prisoner of language, that we always speak from one standpoint, and so on, while dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives. Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we meant? Why does it burn my tongue to say that global warming is a fact whether you like it or not? Why can’t I simply say that the argument is closed for good?

Technorati Tags: philosophy of science

TrackBack Url for this entry:
http://www.complexitystudies.org/2007/02/27/repentance-of-a-relativist-bruno-latour/trackback/