====================== HES POSTING =================== 
 
I would add an eighth area of concern about SSK, one which 
is alluded to by Wade, as well as Greg Ransom ("begging 
the question") and Kevin Quinn ("debunking the 
debunkers").  But before I begin, let me state that this is not 
necessarily a concern about the use of SSK, but rather about 
those who might practice SSK. 
 
It is my understanding that SSK primarily focuses on the 
articulation and significance of meanings in scientific 
practice.  In so doing, SSK relies on practices of scientific 
explanation itself and therefore can be subject to the same 
analysis.  As the veil of objectivity and value-freedom 
covering scientific practice is slowly removed, SSK cannot 
itself use this veil to authorize its analysis.  In this, SSK is truly 
radical in that it makes more apparent the profound 
reflexivity that lies at the heart of our scientific practices. 
 
Therefore, the question I would pose to those who would 
want to use SSK is: "if you want to criticize value-freedom in 
scientific practice, are you willing to criticize it in your own 
discourse?"  Please know that I don't pose the question to 
dissuade the adoption of SSK, but rather to illustrate the 
implications of using SSK.  The quote used by Wade from 
Collins and Yearley is most apt here: "we are not in the 
position to claim that SSK has 'touched bedrock'."  This 
situation may cause a concern for some that there is no end 
to interpretation in SSK.  Using Wittgenstein here may be a 
bit out of place, but I find his famous question very 
illuminating:  "What is left over if I subtract the fact that my 
arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?"  Seemingly, 
"something" is left over.  The arm may go up for a variety of 
reasons--the wind, grabbed by someone, reflex....etc.  The 
point is that in using SSK, we can't simply assume that the 
analysis has reached some deeper level of truth.  As Wade 
said, "deprivileging nature need not imply reprivileging 
society."  However, to borrow a metaphor from McCloskey, I 
believe that the use of SSK can enrich our conversation in 
HET if used with integrity and honesty. 
 
As an aside, I know that discourse analysis has waned in 
SSK, but I was surprised at Collins and Yearley's claim that 
"discourse analysis has been largely abandoned within 
SSK."  Bruno Latour has certainly not abandoned discourse 
analysis (for example, see Latour's "Pasteur on Lactic Acid 
Yeast: A Partial Semiotic Analysis"), but I wonder if SSK has 
abandoned Bruno Latour?  Perhaps that is a good SSK 
question about SSK. 
 
Jonathon E. Mote 
The Pew Charitable Trusts 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]