If you'd like a longer read along the lines of this note, then you might enjoy Bruno Latour's Science in Action: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Action-Scientists-Engineers... I found the book super interesting in terms of explaining how innovations happen and how we talk about them in retrospect. Although it…
…science is also prone to this behaviour, and programming and science have the same solution to the problem: actually building a verifiable { experiment / correct theorem / more efficient algorithm }. cf. Science in Action by Bruno Latour (1987), which I tried to summarize on http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SocialConstructionOfScie...
…to build a general theory of STS. Nye's "Technology Matters" is less a work of theory than a critique that poses core questions about how society should seek to integrate technical advances. Latour's "Science in Action," "Reassembling the Social," and "Aramis" are great examples of his approach to whole-of-system analysis of sociotechnical systems. Rogers' "Diffusion of Innovation" is a classic work theorizing how innovation…
Please keep in mind that the book by Bruno Latour referenced here (Science in Action) and another of his articles was lampooned in the Sokal Affair because Latour was confused about relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/trans...…
I can agree with the "lyrical philosopher" quote, but for anyone with a background in science that think that Bruno Latour was a "serious man", I suggest reading the book that made him famous: "Science in Action". It's so bad that it's funny. Out of his 7 rules for studying experimental science, the third one is outstanding: > Since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature's representation, not…
如果你想顺着这篇笔记读点更长篇幅的内容，那你可能会喜欢布鲁诺·拉图尔的《科学在行动》：https://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Action-Scientists-Engineers... 我觉得这本书在解释创新是如何发生以及我们事后如何讨论创新方面超级有意思。虽然它……
If you'd like a longer read along the lines of this note, then you might enjoy Bruno Latour's Science in Action: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Action-Scientists-Engineers... I found the book super interesting in terms of explaining how innovations happen and how we talk about them in retrospect. Although it…
……科学也容易出现这种行为，而编程和科学面对这个问题的解决办法是一样的：去实实在在地构建一个可验证的 { 实验 / 正确的定理 / 更高效的算法 }。参见布鲁诺·拉图尔（Bruno Latour）的《科学在行动》（Science in Action，1987），我曾尝试在 http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SocialConstructionOfScie 上对其进行总结……
…science is also prone to this behaviour, and programming and science have the same solution to the problem: actually building a verifiable { experiment / correct theorem / more efficient algorithm }. cf. Science in Action by Bruno Latour (1987), which I tried to summarize on http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?SocialConstructionOfScie...
……去建立一个 STS（科技与社会研究）的通用理论。奈（Nye）的《技术要义》（Technology Matters）与其说是一部理论著作，不如说是一篇批判性作品，对社会应该如何整合技术进步提出了核心问题。拉图尔的《科学在行动》、《重组社会》和《阿兰米斯》是他对社会技术系统进行全系统分析方法的极佳范例。罗杰斯的《创新的扩散》则是一部将创新如何……进行理论化阐述的经典之作。
…to build a general theory of STS. Nye's "Technology Matters" is less a work of theory than a critique that poses core questions about how society should seek to integrate technical advances. Latour's "Science in Action," "Reassembling the Social," and "Aramis" are great examples of his approach to whole-of-system analysis of sociotechnical systems. Rogers' "Diffusion of Innovation" is a classic work theorizing how innovation…
请记住，这里提到的布鲁诺·拉图尔的书《科学在行动》以及他的另一篇文章在索卡尔事件（Sokal Affair）中被大肆嘲讽，因为拉图尔连相对论都没搞明白：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/trans...……
Please keep in mind that the book by Bruno Latour referenced here (Science in Action) and another of his articles was lampooned in the Sokal Affair because Latour was confused about relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/trans...…
我同意那个“抒情哲学家”的评价，但对于任何有科学背景、以为布鲁诺·拉图尔是个“严肃学者”的人，我建议去读读让他成名的那本书：《科学在行动》。简直烂得引人发笑。在他研究实验科学的 7 条规则中，第三条最为奇葩：> 既然争论的解决是自然表象的原因，而不是……
I can agree with the "lyrical philosopher" quote, but for anyone with a background in science that think that Bruno Latour was a "serious man", I suggest reading the book that made him famous: "Science in Action". It's so bad that it's funny. Out of his 7 rules for studying experimental science, the third one is outstanding: > Since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature's representation, not…