====================== 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]