A primary critique of technoscience is that it targets a 'straw man' construction of science. That is, contemporary philosophy of science typically takes a pragmatic and instrumental view of objectivity. From this perspective, what is objective is what can be measured, transfers to other contexts, and can be used to make predictions. This is not different from the performative view of objectivity preferred by technoscience, leaving technoscience with a critique of a naive view of science that many, if not most, contemporary scientists would not agree with.
The concept of material networks is also ontologically unclear and somewhat archaic, depending upon a material/ideal dichotomy that has largely been abandoned, by both scientists and philosophers, during the latter half of the twentieth century.
Finally, the boundaries separating traditional scientific areas have also been increasingly blurred in scientific practice during the course of the twentieth century, with many knowledge fields now being fundamentally trans-disciplinary. Many traditional areas of science, such as biology, zoology and botany, have been superseded by more systemic conceptions, such as eco-sciences and approaches that integrate older conceptions of nature with conceptions in which relationships between human activity (production, economics, politics, etc.) and non-human biology are in focus. Today, multi-disciplinary approaches are often a condition for research funding.
These considerations question the current relevance of technoscience, seeing its critique as belonging perhaps to a 1970s view of science, its philosophical foundations having been superseded by post-structuralism, and its vision as merely descriptive of what most contemporary scientists and technologists take for granted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment