Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Stengers PDF

    Uploaded by

    João Guilherme Viana
    5 views20 pages

    Original Title

    Stengers.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views20 pages

    Stengers PDF

    Uploaded by

    João Guilherme Viana

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 20
    ISABELLE STENGERS Cosmopolities I L The Seience Wars IL The Invention of Mechanics IIL Thermodynamics ‘ deine fein Bp Ts pesthumanties 9 CONTENTS 4 TaSiageiy a ing ade PREFACE ow can we examine the discordant landscape of knowledge Aerived from modern scence? Ie there any consistency tobe fonnd among conteaditory or muy excsive visions, sbi ‘ions, and methods? Is the hope of “new alliance” tht wat expressed more than went years ago destined to remaina bl Tow dream? T would ike to respond to hese questions hy arguing for an “calgy of practices” Lhave constructed my argument in seven steps or pris, covering vo separate volumes thse the fs) Each of these seven books is self-contained and ean he read on its ow, bat Lhope that readers view individual ooks en {nvittion ores the osers, for the clleton forms united whole. Seep by step, have attempted to bring ato exitence seven problematic landscapes, seven ateaps at creating the possibly of consateney where there is curently only eo frontation. Whether he topic isthe nature af physie aud phys Jaa ae, the debate over self-organiation and emergence, ot ‘he challenges posed hy chnopeychiatry othe vison between ‘moviern and arhale knowledge, in each case I ted to addzoss he practies fom which ach knowledge evalves, based onthe constraints imposed by the uncertainties they introduce and ¢helreorrspondingobligations. Nownlyinghody af knowledge will ever demonstrate that the neutrino of phyios ean enexs vith the maliple worlds moblled by ethnopeyhiatry. None theles, auch coerce ha a meaning and thas nothing 0 to with tolerance or disenchanted septic, Sach beings can Ie cllectivly affine ina “cosmepolitieal” space where dhe hopes and doubta a fears anal dreams they engender cole sn ease them to eit. That why, through the exploration of kapuledge, what Twoald ike to convey othe reader salsa a form of tical experimentation, BOOKI The Science Wars Scientific Passions How do the scenees force ust sanenien of the wool? What do they teach us about ee possiltes of understanding i According to Stephen Hawking peaking with ll he apparent authority of esmologea heary and a «descendant of Cal leo, Neston, and Einstein, we will om know te mind of god Jolin Wheeler, using quantum mechanies, lai that the vere tell, Uke everything that exits in space-time. owes sts actual exstnce to the aberver. Relievers in the (tong) ‘nthropie theory lan that ssience leading us toward a dif ferent, but equally wncertling,couclusion: the end point a the ‘universe isthe production of hose who describe it This gives rise tothe question of the durbilty of our cosmle yoeation hat will become of mankind in 3 few billion years when the suris resources are exhausted andthe universe itself winds lown? Forte moment however, we stil don't know if quam, ‘echanies wil allow Schrodinger ext, enclosed in its ine lho, odie before the physicist condescends to open it oF ifthe entire universe wil spinoff ipl realities each tine 4 measuring device produces one result ther than anther Ther is still ongoing deste conceraing the possibilty ofthe “earduat” we consist of achieving conscious experience! le conseioumees an ixeduribe property ke epee o ine? Can tbe ily expised in terms of the multiple ero-proceesing information residing inthe bean? Oe rather i itbated ou ‘quantum effets that have heen amplified ad sabiieed inthe Draa’s mierotubles? Wastever the ease ay be, fought can be reduce tothe properties of ezeits and neuronal sytem, shooldst we begin to ret ox eas shout unde, the oo, ‘cousciousnes,pereption, and 9 ona fated join the ers tal epheres of asvonomery, the phlogston of cenit. or the ‘animal spists of physicians in the cemetery of preseentifc ‘theories? tis sald that ee steep inthe istry of wience was the Dreakwith:ayt,bategually important wae the break with oph- Jam. Rational discourse would, therefore, fons its inception ‘designate es “others” polemical the etions tht evade veri feation and delyargumest.ontheone band, athe arguments that explo the reedomfor those who have escaped myth—to rove thesis (orits opposite) om the other What ofthe his- torial soph, apart frm their roles ones the other ‘of the philosopher, the friend of tut? How do myths funetion thin the eutares in which they are anutegal pare? There is no ned to aise such questions here, for terms like "myth" oF “sophistinsofar a the cienes ate conccrned, serve se code words, always addressed to others, reminding them ofthe always renewable rupture. From dhs perpestive i could be said thatthe slence lollow a uarow path, ever onthe defen sive agains the powers of the imagination, which are satisfied ‘with explanations and sgaiications forged without constraint, and against the power of rhetorie, which are satisfied withthe mbiguty of language andthe pretenses of poo, In following this aarow path, are eciemtats relly capable of balaning and eheorivng the “anger questions” concerning ‘he univers, its origin or fnaly, human thought, oF hua ‘ity role? IF moto hy again promoting the abstinence and a proud Rumility that science must mint so the feof the ‘elcions temptations of ideology hit we wl e able o promote ‘sharmosios and pati ellaoraton among the bardworkng “seekers proof” extalledy epistemology? Tn fat the past and present of ao-elled scentic pe= ‘es, as inventive as they may be, free hose who study them to acknvrledge that those qusites ae slay useeptile of tern ‘ng into their opposte—narow mindedness and arrogance ax soon a8 those who are zesponsile for eliating them are {oroed to postion themselves agunst one another. I de and ‘ape of pracioecarrently provides the impression of eoher- enve, ts one of generalized polemic Cold or ht, depending ‘on circumstances i exprested a contemptuons disinterest stemptsatannesation Forexample, hatong-avaited moment whew a “rational pharmacology” wll fly enable o design “seintife” drug) even dramatie proclamations, where acon- ‘ested prac inks its fate wo that of humanity asa whole (ae eriicims of paychoanalysts who warn ofthe threat presented hy the rie of pharmacological peychiaty). Ths polemic is ‘mabe statically in our universities, where every discipline has ts own teritory, is experts, es erie and where the ‘eassuring ition of collegiality prevails, ce whoce only point of agreement isthe disqualification of the “nonssentitc” A polemic embodied much more dypamiealy bythe "argeacale persion.” of mobilization, conquest. and ievarchiaton that strueruretbelandsespe ofthe cent disciplines, ‘Tary years ago, the person who wrote those lines, then & novice philosopher, il believed ia the exemplary role pysiee coal pay once i athirmed the possibilty of tunsfrming he scope and significance oft function at model for oer forms of lnowtedge—a fonction it has served ever since the origin ‘ofthe modern sciences. Ode out of Chase Mans New Dilogue ‘uth Nature, whieh I cosuthored with Iya Prigogine jn 1975 showed ow some ofthe most fagcinating statements made by Pigscs, particulary the reduction of te distinction ween pst and futre—"time's arow"—to a mere question of prubi- Dili, fr romeonferringupon physiessquas-prophetiefane= ion, disclosed its agi, cbe impassioned adveuturousness of is character At that ie Hy Prigoine an wrote “In any ‘venta far as physicsteareeonvermed, they tae lostany theo real angument for elaiming any privilege, whether of exta- territory or of precedence. As scientists, they belong to culture to which they i their tara contebute” In Ene le ‘emp emit, we again ated hat "he serch fo coherence song forms of knowledge has heen the connecting thes i this easy... We eannot discover such eoherenoe avi it were ‘ruth that wanseende oue history, whether that history lea 1st truth or has lot it orignal conection toi. We cam only ‘construct watts history. fom the consent tht situate ‘us ut which also enable us to create new pouibles” However, ‘tis much easier to announce the good news thatthe prophetic utterances of physics have changed and ow reflect a word ‘ati temporally aspmmeti rather than symmetee,ehtie or bifursting rather than deterministic, capable of self ‘onganiaton and not inert and ti, thse to fe the bers simile of readers confronted with the idea tut pysicits are capa of teling them what kind of woxd they lve in. That ‘isthe lesson T need to learn. In a sense forthe thd time, 1 Intend to rework this potion of eoerence and todo so hy con- fronting the question of the relationship between the “pusion for rth” characteristic of che sient and which marked both Onder outof Chas an Enel tonpa eet, and de question ofapossible peace, ahumor of truth. ‘One possible objection ie that the lesson was obvious and should have been evident #9 any pilouopher worthy of the same, The very te of the hook, One ot of Chaos, dint ‘uae serve as an example of denial of prophetic emploa- ss, And whenever i atmpted to tar phsis into a “poet atentvencie" to nature, did’ it aleadyeven though we ad specified tht pote was tobe andeesood in the etynolagi= ca eens of “maker—encourageseentesto range outside the ‘arrow and austere pathways that defined there, with respect to myth aswell as the precarionsness of dxcusive prt? And am Ino once more in the proses of making the same stake? Why speak af the humor of rth when the sstoltion between “science” and “iets ow suspect? Should! acknowledge that it isthe esponabity oferta though, which teaches ‘ach ofus the limitations of ou eppecsive approaches to pro- smote methodologies! peace? have to acknowledge thatthe ideal of peace through « rejetion of the ambitions and passions thatthe erie eon ems is not my goal What more, it ems t me that tie ‘eal is one whose history leads us to doubt its relevance, After all if there i turing poi fa what i referred to a8 modern science, wasn't it Galle rejection of the exsnenty rational compromise ofered by Cardinal Bellrzin? I the astronomers hn boon im agreement, the elicentiedocrine would have been recognied as “teu.” but itwould only be relative tthe ‘gestions and caleulaons af the profession, Indeed, one could sls claim hatte reat narrative of the Coperieanrevoltion, which celebrates the deatuetionol the ancient cosmos, withthe anh at it enter, adits sbstittion by on ante universe in which the Fart is merely a planet, was by no means neses- sary or the Eavth-a plane is eee substitute forthe Earth s5-conter than a supplement; i in @ reference pint for new ‘questions, new practices, nd ew value, bat doe nt produce genuinely scentiicanswers nsge-old questions, But Galle’s ‘ejecion of dhe Jest proposal mist be hear. The Earth planet is nota simple professional lypothesis, tasters a tnth that no methudologial ban wil be able ii. Can we aka all's heirs endorse the esetc rejection he hinvel refed tomale? One might reply that this backward movement is Meg mates the period in question was ne af eo, atime when ‘more than jut the relative positions of the Fath ad the Sun were a sie. Galileo was defending freedom of thought nthe face of eericl dogma, thsi, the possiblity of genuine xtc ‘ought. Methodological eritcem ean only take place na pa fied world, a world where the righ to conduct reaearch a the sence of revealed koowledge are recognize. Galileo’ heirs ‘no longer need or should no longer need, weapons of question thle merittocongueraterion thi recognized their own, 1's look at another example. In 1908, tne when rel ions dogma was no longer threat to pyc. the physicit Max Planck initisted the excommunication of his eulleague Erast Mac, whom he proclaimed gly, through hi historeal-peag- mate concepttonot physi, of weakening the fait inthe tel gible unity af che wold. For Mach, ppsicl references that appeared to refer 1 word hs exited independently abso Jute space and time, atoms, and so on—Had tobe elinnated and ‘replaced by formations that ied physied laws tothe human prtices with which they were ndiscluly connected. In con "east to this critical approach, Planck would fir the necessity ofthe “physcist’ fait” tn the poslllityof achieving ani fied concep ofthe pial word. Withoat hit fai the soure ‘of Hngpiaton that had enabled minds such as Copernican, Keples, Newton, and Faraday to cary out their work would dry wt Plancewas the isto explicily postion physics within the ‘context of fith eater than austere rationality th tat had ‘ow Become am essential component of the phyiits yon on, and to correlatively afin tht the practic of physics ‘as not just another kind of science. Planck dd not actly deny the general plausibly of Mac's description, he rejected it for physics, Payee mat ale to speak ofthe “word! or “nate” independent of the operational and instrumental — relationships that, for Mach. were the only source of theory's Jegcimary. Without thst, how cou physicists have dared clan ‘that energyinconserved and tha twas already conserved before life on Earth even existed, et, before ahunnn was able to ‘conevive of How could they have felt authorized lam that ‘the lw of gravity would continue to govern the movements of colesal hos ster the desruction of the Earth and all its Inhaitant? inorder tobe ableto produce suc staements—the ‘ulminadon of modera phyies-Panek tates that the physicit -mustheshleto believe that evens “inbabita of Mars or any ‘ther intelligence in the universe, ca proce their equiva. Jent. The differetiation established by Planck, based on which ‘he defined the “physicists voeston, doe nt justapove opin jo and rational practice but afrms the prvilegy of plyaic ‘Indoing so, he connected the ineprational needs of physilats with atoll hierarchy: one for the “realities” with which we eal. with physial reality being the only “eal” ene, and that of our rational knowledge, with physics athe uit ere, Pane crest what Gilles Delewee and Flix Guat tari eer to ana “pechosocial ype Planck's physicist nota ort. one we might wantto compare aguinst the orignal. His ‘le to serve at a “marker” funciona reference when ver physicist discuss the work, ite meaning, and the scope of thelr theories, And the faith hat inhabits Planck’ physicist ‘exnuot be sssmilaed ta ype of ideologel overload inter ui to what one might rengniae ae tilly seientifecallenges. ‘Whale the theme ofthe physiiaveeation may fect astrtegy ot hierurelzation, it eannot be reduced t such strategy inthe senae shat ieold be understood in purelyman, socal polit ‘ea, orenlueal tems. Planes not inventinga means ifr "tating pyses from the oer erento; he sates, he terally “neu” against Mach eft ofthat diference, Hecelebrates ‘he conservation of eneray but he hime the product of the vent engendered by the ststemene of that conservation, the visti of the power seems to confr on dhe physicist the ower to talk about the world independently ofthe relation ‘hips of knowledge hat humans create ‘As such, the impassioned voeaton ofthe physicist ffurmed bbyPlanckis pr of the present, ofthe identity of phyeies trans ‘ited to physicist, with which they identify in tur, Ad that vocation serves sea reference not ony in “eternal” discourse ‘onthe eights and claims of py bt within stil techni ‘controversies that underlie coneepts considered fundamental by physics. Ie ein tet a vector ad ingredient of history. ‘The “physicist” whose commitment it herd, for beter oF worse, an integral par ofthe very construction ofthe theoreti calelaisof twentieth ceutuy physics, Tigeeme tome thatthe passione cotsmitment of phyel- ‘uss bound to resist ericimn precisely because it hes een forged in opposition te eriteal though, ike that of Mach and Dbecase a ative component ofthe history physicists inhert ud whieh they learn o exten ean be fund in its eerence to ‘he scandalous ereativgy of physi tat reject the mits po- povety cit ratonalsm. ‘Yet, we may very well wonder whether this vation, nd witht the seentii ith hat serve as an obstacle ta metho ‘logical peace, are not part of past only aes of which remain Ite present, with those being mast media related, Cleat). certain ype of “prophetic” plyses exists today. But AF we mast "speak of physes, woulda it be preferable to approach it from ‘he viewpoint af de new undertaking known a8 “ig scence”? International financing, the construction af lrge-tale insta ments, management of an experiment vera period of several years the organisation of large numbers of ellsgucs the dvi sono abo: dese aredhe kindof practi quistione that pre onc uting-edge” physicists today far more thanthe ideal” ‘teston ofthe physiciets oration. Cant we take advantage ofthis stuation, which cleaeyiustrtes ht, seandlegs of ts ‘vocation lyse ia confronted with the atm ind of dita faced by every mega-enterprise threatened by bureavraiza ‘ton and autism, and forget about this outdated mca of erogant pretensions? Teioan abjetion we need to take very seriously. A plusible ‘uc is within sight in whieh there will obviously be eins, but they, at moze or lss competent exployes, will no longer De dstinguishe from anyone else who sels ri labor power. ‘Tt this prfotyplaeble fare already serves to disquaily interest in the impassioned singularity of sccaiieprscioes may appear to be am appropriate response to the argance of thet lim. In The invention of Maar Seece wrote ofthe ‘connivance ofthe so-called moder sciences with th dynam- ies of redefinition that sngularte this delocalie, shizomatic ower knowns capitalism. Wecan se the genial hand of eap- falism in his compliety, he corer oft most forndable wn sgulrity it parasite nacre. While eaptalim has destroyed ‘many practices, it alo has the ability not to destroy thove i fecls on batt redebne them So-elled inodern practices ave affected hy this paastion, which gives them a ieatiy ‘hat weakens any abi to cess thei ubjogtin, pit them guns‘ one another, and leads them wo eondone the desrction of pratcee whose ime har some. Wouldnt it be arf sien= tificpractces, whic have toa cenain exten: benebied fromthe ‘dynamic of reeniton that destoyed so maay others, were to ‘experience the seme ie? However, this vinietive morality, no matter how sppalig ‘maybe, i not one I share. le promlgators wl alwys have 00d reasons fr tele vedi, bt this vent wll be delivered repeatedly, without risk, and situate them in x monotonous Tanisespe litered with sills reasons for diagualification. ‘Where then can we situate. in oar present, 2 “eae” capable ‘of restating the accusation af compromise snd able teach us 1o resi, along witht ease that we can acniwlede to be free of complety, basing reited not dhsough some histor cal coningeney predated on “aot yet,” but through it owe, resource, de dynamies of eapitalinsedefnition? INearnagto ‘think is earning o vest future that present itself ws ab ‘ue, plaucble, snd normal, we cannot do s0 citer by evoking snabstract fur, from whieh everthing subjer to ovr disap proval as heen swept aside, or hy referring to adit case that we ould and should imagine oe five of ny comprorise “To resis key frre inthe present ito gamble that he pres ‘ent etl provides substaneeforresistance, tat its populated by pretices that remain vial even iF none of them has escaped the ‘seneralivedparasiin ha implicates them al Consequently, itis the "ving” physiol I need to eonsider, ‘not the one who will nicer a the romantic dream pursued by der science ad which a harsh reality wil have destoyed 0 nt want o take advantage ofthe process dat would replse the fenetalhed polemle among practises with the eration of an Instrumental network where each discipline would have no other entity but that of data generator cht marks its psl= ‘don in the network in question. I want to resist this process ‘This presopposes being onthe posibiliy of diferent dreams for physica an other modern practitioners, Thesefore, i is {he ansety hat eontinus to occupy the pst at CERN that "want to confi and celebrate, and not the Mecinood of the ‘ynical aug that ushers inthe abandonment of the deeam and the redefinition ofthe pyc as ng in some more or les ‘extavagentlange-sale undertaking “The diagnosis of ecomings in every passing present ie what Newsche assigned 1 the pilasopher as physi, ‘phy: leian of culation’ or inventor of new liinent modex of existenor” wrote Delene ad Gutta! The challenge they Jay out could equally be my own: tn diagnose the “new imams nent modes of exitence" our madera priciest be apa be of, This also implies the posi of “pychosoeal” types sctiatd by desir for trth that would not reguice then lait in the cave Planck a Hast ‘euththat ransend aller ‘The rseratn of Moder Scene enminated in ely paradoxical Ggure of “nonrelatvistvephieis,” of tinioners capable of elaiming that "in is the measure ot things” and of understanding the statement “not all measure ‘ments are equivalent” as an imperative, wo male sare we have rade ourselves worthy of addressing what we clam tomesre ‘Those sophists who are notsatised withthe wer acknowledg ment ofthe relativity of truth but would tm the ruth of the reltive—wbat [refer toa the honor of tithe then he ‘qvalyeapabe of reworking the meaning ofthe relationship that identifies science and eggs guint opinion ad nth For-and isi he conta thei of The vention of Meer enoehilethe"sruggeagainstopinion” invita tothe so-called ‘modern ssenecs that augue has nothing odo with maters of principle: the opinion against which a olen einented in not opinion in general It's opinion crested with reference 0 "he invention itsel othe possibilty of anew “measurement” ofthe eration of & new way alway opal and relative of i ferentang science from fetion, That is why U have tried to highlight the difference between the event eonaited by the ‘reation of 2 measurement and the directive eabodied in the eduction ofthis even tan illustration ofthe ight and general ligation osubjecall things to measurement. This difference ‘enbestated in politi terms, and it woul then correspond to the difference between the politics couse ofthe sleneee and a general polisesof power Yes, ecient praties, nd in particular theoreseal-esperimental practices, are valnerable ‘0 power but, no this vulnerability cannot be confused with faalliy, This ditference ean also be stated in tera of "mode “of existence the seienses donot owe their existence tothe di ‘qualfaton, with which heya dete, of so-called “pre sient” or nonrational knowledge, Yet the postbiliy of other wenties forthe scenes, 8 teed to bring out in The Inert of Moder Skene, a nots ficient forthe operation of “agnosis” A tre dagons inthe [Niewichean seas, must have the power of «performative, It ‘cannot be commentary. extort mie isk assuming an inventive poston that brings into existence, and makes per ‘epile, the passions and actions associated withthe becom ingsitevokes, What | want to make pereepile are the passions sand actions associated with peace hue nat one of method, that does not demand tat those it involves reoct the specie passion forth that lows them thinkeand ees, Naturally the act of diggoais must noe be eonfved with 1 mere poliial project. te not a quetion of constructing sertegy that hopes to inscribe itself as auth in our history and which, inorder to do so, must ae int accovt the intrested effective relations uf force withowt whch no claim. no objee= tive, no slerative proposal would lave meaning. I it were a ‘question of strategy, the undertaking would be prt of «genre thathas demonstrate is ability to survive its own absurdity ‘would poston me inne with thoes they sre legion bo are convinced that eveyone’ fatare i governed by eoritions that they themselves are responsible for establishing. ‘The diagnosis of becoming isnot the starting point fora strategy but rather agpreultive operation. aout experimen. ‘A thought experiment can never slaim t be abe ocousttte 2 program thst would simply need tobe put into application. ‘With respect siemifepratces~ax larwhere—such experi- ‘ments have never lad any role other than thet of eeting pos sible, that i of making vs the dretives, evidences and ‘eecions that those posibles must question before they thet= selves can heeome pereptible, And unlike the thonght exper ments that are pat of ecient practices, these posibles are not determined, and what ist stake isnot the eration of an experimental mchaniso for actuliing aud testing them. ‘The diagnosis of becomings doesnot sume the ideniheaion ‘ posibes bu their strinsie link witha strugee aginst prob abilities a strggle wherein the actors mat deine thexselves ‘interns of probabilities. nother wor, tsa question fer sing words tht are menningel only when they bring about ‘heir own reinvention, words what greatest amnion would be fo ecome clements of histories that, without them, might have Deen lly tere ‘The Neutrino’s Paradoxical Mode of Existence [would like to turn to dhe point where Iapprosched he ques tion ofthe ‘physicies voeation.” Iie indo i terms of tye ‘fieaion that Mach eeitcized the referener to tons, and to bsolutespace and tine. Sen from the perspective the refer- fences aceeped atthe time conessning the opposition betwsen an authentically cient practice anf one not subject t the cxigencis of seientie rationality, Mach was ght” an Plank vas wel avare of thi. He knew he wae asoctng the “ps cists vocation” with what, following Marx, shoul! be refered 'o a8 mystiheation: the tamaformtion into “the properties of things themselves” of something that, actording to Mach, should be subjet to experimental pratice and, Mare would ‘we add, tits corresponding soil relations. I this that may have rigged theviolenrof Plane ely the ection ‘that Mach wa "false prophet" werecoguite fase prophets, be ‘sid, by the Fruit of thot prophesies, in this ase the predict ‘hle dat of physi ati isle Meyerson, the philosopher of science, who best understood te vialence of theejection by physics ofthe “tational” translation of their quest that ad been propored by crite philosophy. For ths emphasieed a generalised pe sentation tat eonteated the passion for comprehension with the ascetic reading offered by epistemology: In the begining of Meyerson first great hook, Ienity and ely (907, be notes the difference between 4 “aw and a “ens” Although ‘ordinary epistemology took pre in following Harme in ‘rogue of exusaliy. which should, caiomaly, be reduced to ‘empirical regularity where the law would defane the ral}, Mey. rson showed that scientists are nt ete with such regula iy, even ft allows them to predict an coro, On the wther ‘hand, every time causal hypothesis his led to assume 4 ‘ature capable of explaining itl, has, he elms, exereed bold over physicists. The ase ofthis hypothesie—that omcellidescending to Cartesian ws, that they are tracted ‘one another ina Newtonian sense that they ae replaced by energy a8 understood ly Osvaldo hy disturbances fn the eter. oF ky a pure physical~mathernatica formulation is of latte importance. What ie smporant, for Meyerson, i he ‘onstruction of an “ontological” reality that could explain what we observe and cou doo, moreover by redacing change to ermanenc, hy demonstrating the deni of eaute and effect. Reason soticipates and expects identi, tat i, the discovery of some permancace beyond an observable change. and it doct soeven when the posible realization ofa anbition for dent fication would have paradovcl eonsequettes, "Let us suppose for # moment that slenee cam realy make the eal pst late previ; antecedent ad consequent, cause and effet, are ‘confused and hecome indisceribe,sitmltaneous, And time ‘tet, whose course no longer ingles change ie indiscernible, ‘ununinable, non-existent. It is the confusion of pas, pret nt and future—a universe eternally immutable. The progress ofthe worlds topped... Is the univers immutable fn space ‘sie, the sphere of Parmenides, imperishable snd without shange From Meyerson’s point of view, the idea ofa stable separs~ ‘ion between tiene and mecaphyscs ie vain pursuit "Met ysis penetrate ll selene, fr the very spl reason thst ‘tis contained ints point of departure, We cannot even iaalate ‘ta preise region. Primm vos, deine phosphors ‘bea precept dictated by wisdom. leis eli chimerial mle almost as inapplicable a i we were advised toni ourselves ofthe force of gravitation. Vee est philsophar.™ Everytime he posi of understanding arises, no mater how bold and speclative tenets froma favorable a pio: sientists have «4 prpinty fr eosidering hat posit toe me; it seems ‘plausibe” fo them, For Meyerson, plasty is neither spe oristie nor etpireal, Unlike + Kastan apriorsie judgment It may be eefted by experimen, Int it neverhelous exerts & “seductive power on the mind of the sient, just a i does on ‘ommon sene” in general, that no empirical knowledge oe Iscapableof justifying ‘Because iets nature can bend to the requirements of the aut postulate only partially, Kt manifest itsolf, therefore in its rationality in the reslatance the effort at identi tion always rane up agaist This point tothe gest diterence Denien thehisny of aecienge sich as isis, where the gen- cra and invinebletendeney ofthe human mind to iden ie reflected in the risk and creaiveness generated hy netince, and other undertakings that ae satisfied with plas. To state thatthe physical brain must obviously explain thought, or cramp, ito embrace aplausbe” statement inthe Meyerso~ ‘lan sente, and the diference herween he stati latmes of thls statement nd he beauty of Eiatls vison i explained by he poverty ofthe constraints he first wl ave o satis, a8 well as the consequences that wil have the vried, Nelter apr Isticmor empirical, uch statement ean indifferently aston ite with any sepectof neurophysolgial research. Thave dele on Meyerson thesis at some length becouse i ‘quteaccuatlydserbos the chllenge hates before me. Had Taecepred his claims, my problems wold be solved, Iewould he Pointless o investigate the meaningassunsed by the“physicia’s eprreer rere tem seer meremntnnennennnnenerrereen foi” ache tur of tela century or the file ofthe varios criticame leveled at physic. The prestige ofthe theories that lend to physics the allure of metaphysics, the hiestey ofthe sciences, 8 wel athe hierarchy that characterize physic and Aivides ic into “fusdaosental physios" and “peniomenclagt- cal physics” limited to the study of obeervet behaviors, wold be oel- explanatory. And i wosld be robustly set-eaplanatany because no eritealdislosue of any kind could andy what would then posses theallare of fait. There would he noting lefito do bat offer some slight incanatory pris for the "ik ‘tht characterizes the difference hetwoen the physcit's “it” and de vacaiyof common sense whenever ge mistaken far ‘But belng fae wih challenge does not met that Ihave the means to refute a description like the ane provide hy Meyerson. On the contrary. egard suc a description a8 ter ‘ingly plausibe, much more plausible thn those tht lew ‘hysiesasa projec fordominstonarcoateal. Learning oresit {his very Meyersoaian plansbily, Jeng not to “int” Physis, whatever he empttion, with «metaphysical common sense that would explain its suceeses and its estes, at Mtempt to implementa difernt ides of palosophy, one that I have already referred io specially a "apernlatie” inthe sense of atragule against probabilities. ‘The possiblity of a “non-Meyersonitn” solution affects the pst much ose han theft. Especially the futur of the reli ‘tionship between what we call scienee and what weal piloso- hy. If Meyerson had boen right, dose relationships wold be Stable, the slenit repeatedly produeingatements that would appear to he presentation of the “real tell." the philoso ‘her adopting acta potion, reminding us, now as before, ofthe legitimate character of those sateen, he hon ‘on which they are based. And they wileantie to provide “he ‘ons of matter” which fetionaze physica reality ae able to ceplain life or eonsciousnass and to exit the ierepessble “Tetishiaton” ofthe beings constricted by the experiment sclentes Haunt the moleeule bora in the laboratories plysi- ‘ins, tothe great displeasure of thos rational chemists who denounced ithe way we denounce ftithes, now been offered. in the form of DNA, to dhe public at lange as the key to human ‘aluation, the holder of the-putelygenetie-seret of human desing? “Wert destroy ou fetishes!" This the logan that pro- vides eritial though with an all-purpose foundation. “Cam ‘mon sense is fetishistic, trepresiby fetishitic. and the esiruetion you demand is none other than your own, ofthe Dssion that i the lf of your intellect” This was Meyersois ‘ply, which Planele would probably agree with, And Pluck sight alo add, as Rinstein did Che real incomprehensible miracle i that the world rns out to be comprehensible), at, where physi ie concerned, fetishistc fit i de fae ‘confirmed. But what those two antaonieie postions have in ‘common is that they both seem to know a great dea bit too rach infact, about tishes. about dhe ey they funtion, about the “ommon sense” that al unkind tld to share, about the ‘oeepressibleendenciesalleulturesare sai to manifest. this sense, Meyerson, Plank, and Mach ae indeed modern, a the term s understood by Bruno Lato, a tht, regardless oftheir ‘confit, they belong 1» ealture whose esr inact ie thi defines relationships what a globally refered to st “Fetishes in terms of elie, altunigh thy are prepared a dis gre over whether uch bli ndispenaable on. Whew Mach attacks the fetishes that fet on thought, he demands that the decisive break that defines modernity be recognized, and maintained, in the foe of the temptations of “egression” "Men" must not only reegaite that thee prac~ sce are an integral part of the referents they eset eit but thatthogereferens refer only to thoee prices, They renounce any sy that might he diese toad an autonomous ety. Norway. such renunciation eoefinma the ably and vocation of modern practices to Gisquaiy all ether practices, which do ‘ot define theme a ane, but tis ths remancition that Planck refuses to aoypt om Beball of pss, and Mey ‘room, on behalf of common sens isl. However fom the Post of view of my hypothesis ofthe possibly of "x nonreln tive sophist.” such a refi is inadequate, Kf not feishiste Irie that needs whe defended, but rather eu of esha alltheir diversity, modem and nonaodern ‘Thi he decisive step taken by Bro Latour inhi ete lesion sul cal made des dies fiche ad itis Latour [il fallow here o am able to spprogch Planck's eeetion in ‘ermsother than thse of anuajusiable faith, jose in face, ‘What Plank defends against Mac is not aly the physica “leh” maviston of the metepysieal physical worl, itislao~ snd Iam gambling thai primariy—the fact tat the Belg ‘abvieated by physis may nonethlees he referred toa "rea ‘endowed, no mater that they are “fabriceted”" ths aston ‘mous existence: atch,” sLatoueallsthem, Tp abandon antieishisle eral tiniking des not imply scceprance af Planck positionaseuch orackuowledgmentthat physics unconrilly ends toward metaphysics, ti into uve the posite ambiguity of ts postion, The theme of “ali” whi Planck makes a condition of physics, could be under stood as protest by someone who feels forced hy an anife- ‘ihisticndversary to reject what, fhm, the greamness of hi undertaking. The theme of belie “leave us ou fetishes: ob ‘ously. were the ones who ereate them, but we need w belive, we willy need to belove nthe atonomy”— would reflect the Strength of the modern anifeuah position: Planck would have ‘no way, oer dan ip terme of ele a ith, to desertbe wt In is eyes makes physies valuable, tat which ean aac on. But based on this hypothesis, what Plank wants oaffrm le primarily, dat the erates phys brings into existence possess their cestutin atu the power to leirately ‘aim an autonomous existence. Without the impassioned yet lemanding tests thst have verified that legtiy, they would not exist. forthe lang theme of neotetary belie in vision of unified wort, far from rellectingan epreeible Meyers0- nian tendency, would imply that modern atifetishism, which dlestoyed de words Planck ese, replaced them wit aie, that hasall he seduetivenes fa war ery. The reference, nat 0 ‘heantonomy of ‘physia blag (atoms electron, nein, i) but tan autonomous word that would ensure he unique snthoriy of physics, allowed Planck to sit rom defense to offense, to comer the authority of ecitial thinking with the _ahortyaftheteaiton of physics ua whol My Gpeculative) interpretation means tht the question, ‘oF the weation of the physlest ean be addresed in terms that azenolonger"gonerl purpose” ut inherent in the at of fab ‘atingfatshe." which aguas physics, nek wasableto defend this singularity only yjoningtto belie” But en the eed allem such belief asoeated withthe definition of mod erm practices ab “atltishiate?” And with respect to physical Ding, does the possibility ha thie claim to autonomy es heundersood novell then oggest anew approse to te ‘heme ofthe plicit vocation? In eer woes ist pos sible that the "fishes" passionately constructed by pices, were they roeognized st sich, might mts, withthe refer ‘aces constructed by other forms of knowledge, relationships ‘thatare not hierarchical and polemical? Ubave in mind her the cremon of “payehosoil” physi- ‘lst whose practice would requir her to conser, and whe practice would make posible ae same ime and cuheresly, ‘these swo apparently contradictory propositions thatthe nea ‘wina iasold asthe period in which ts existence was inet deni- ‘onstrated, that i, produced, inonelaborsteries ad that it dates back to the origin ofthe univers, Fwas both constrated and defined as an ingredient i all weak meg interiction and ‘smh, nan inegal part of our cosmlogial models * Conse qe itean serve asthe subject of propositions that make ita product of our understanding and there that make ta partici tina cosmichistory that snd to haveledto the appearance of beings capablecf constructing sueb understanding choose the neutrino beeuse it exemplifies in parca larly dramatiewsy the pardoxica made af existence ofall those beings that have been constructed by physics and that ext in ay tit affirms thelr independence with rnp to the time frame of mnman knowledge, The demsonration othe existence ‘af anentiy cuca the neutrino obvionely has nating com= ‘mon, a6 Meyerson ahowed, withthe production ofa general law based on observable and repodueibe regularities Te has nothing todo with the madesty of siemledeseriptionrvating from the activity of methodical and ential obervaion tht an activity that would boas offal iin itself of parasite passions that paralyze rational inguy. The neutrino sweeps ‘side this apparent modesty It denies the idea tt the pool tacts of siente present no prablem other ta tat of knowing hy umans ave for so long, lowed themselves tobe swept ‘pb their pasions and deceived by thei isons, And it does sointwo complementary ways, On the ot hand, isa quia. ‘events example of an objet that diffi oasere, forts primary aterbute is to be susceptible oul olterations that ‘cocur very rarely: the devices that enabled it taint status ss exstent imply and assume sn enormoas rune of st ments interpretations, and references to other particle tat have already come into existence fr human inowledge, and Inseparably.atangle of human, soa, tecnica, machemateal instvutiona, and ealtral histories, Moreover, ii even more changed” because the existence ofthis gensinely phantoms par Ile which ignores walls and barriers, hd been postulated for ‘eoretical-sesheie reasons of syminitry ad conservation, loagbelore dhe means for “detecting” itwere create. However, ‘nor the meuna wee ereted and once it demonsrate its exis tence under the required conditions, the neu existed with allthe characteristics of eal “ctor.” endowed with properties ‘hat als enable ito act and esplsn, sonomons in relation to the detection devioe that caused ic to ear witness to its exit- ‘tence and which snow nothing more than an “inerument” Foe ‘his was the voration of the existence twas endowed withthe proofs upon which the legitimacy of tht existence within p= ics depended were suposed to give the physicist the power to ‘aim tha the neutrino had existed for al ie nd nall places, ond tat the eects that make it observable and identi by [buns are evens that demand to beunderstoodas ingredients sotot naman story hut the hatry of the universe ‘The neutrino isnot, therefore, the “normal” intessetion etween aration atvty and « phenomenal word. The new teino and its peers, stating with Newton's seandalovs force of attraction, bind together the mutual ivalvenent of two realities undergoing correlated expansion: that ofthe dense _networkof ou pritices sd their histories, tat of the expo “nents and modes of interaction hat populate whats referedta ‘ashe "physical wold" In shor, he nevtrno exes ‘ously and inaepardbly “inital” and “Tor ws," becoming even more “in tel” a participant in nantes event in which we szek the prineiplxof mater, ait eomes int existence “Torus” su ingredient of increasingly numerous practices, devices, and possible. This apparently paradoxical rode of exiteee—in hich, fr fem being at odds isthe cave in rational phi losophy, the “in itself” and the "fru" ace corclatvely po Aeedle indoed the one targeted hy experimental practioe ‘nthe srg sence, the one whoze inp is measured hy ts bili to bring ino existence accra re both dite and transistors ‘To fllow Latour i alin “fatthes" those beings we fab- cate and tht fabrleate ws, from which the scientist (or the technician, va diferent modes “eeeves autonomy by ving {ther an autonomy he does not ave" does ot confer pon ‘her any ideatty oder than the fully developed entity thy get in plgsis, That ie why tie important o speak of factishes stad not etihes, for Tam not ying to esta general he ory of fetishes, which would never be mote than the poeudo~ positive counterpart of their general condemnation. On the ontrary. beginning with the question of what allows the prs tionertoclaim that hebeings shefbriate eset autonomously, ‘entails posing the problem ofthe distinc: modes of existence of he beings we bringin existence ad that bring into exis ‘ence As willbe show, the distinctions heein within phys ‘wel and their umber inzeases whenever we ty to under” lund the impasionod interest in new atfets enpabe of beng ‘ferred toas" living” o ven “thinking” ‘There is nothing consensual or pacific about the “aesihes" \e briny into being. Recognizing tam as ireducble oat ‘al epistemology oro the kind of abject” philosophy kes to contrast wih “sabes snot at all eytonymnous with pati ‘lonand eoherence,Battorecoguie them a sack may function ‘8a proposition addeeeaed t thei “eretors” Such a propor ‘on, while throng the singularity of thee pruetie as being reatve with no obligation tthe grt naratve that contrasts ‘myth snd reason, ie not emited to eating wha they Insist on seeing recognized. It 6 an ato proposition that can inralve ‘hem in toring out whstever is they clam, and eapecaly 0 onsder superfuos the elim to dhe power of diualifica- ion. nother words, fetishes propose a uta of tah They eat the possiiliy af divengente between two themes tht se frequently coupled: transcendence and surance Yes the ‘esture tranteends its ereator bt this uo miracle but a ‘vent whose production polariaes th work of the erator” No, the produced transcendence does not guarantor membership ins runscendent word, or the aval of tht work euch 12 reerenc for julgments or operations of dinqusifeston ‘or annexation, Fatisbes are a way of afiming the erutful nos f the relative that, way of seating the power of tat to a patel overt and not oa word a wich pratioes would merely prove acess, The factisiase proposition dors not ela 2 neutrality that would be accepted by all Invites the physics std ater ‘onstructos of fatchot to diferentiate dhe conquered fabri- ‘ted-ditcovered autonomy oftheir exeaures from the unen~ gendered autonomy of a word wating to he discovered. But it sleoreflectsatus, which he nesting doesnot rcessarily jus {ify and which snot even specifically adreased to it ut whi ‘concerns all those eustentsprodoed in experiment lbora- ‘ories. To gamble on the possibility ofthe humor ofa ruth thet schnowedges its fabrication is wo commit onoself to future where irony dees not tum: these existent will ot disolre inside a mournful and sempiternal network of compromite ata negotiation that, once deelphered, would leat the concusion ‘thatthe ae fabrications pointing toward coutne of aman, alltoohamaa, negotiation. Inone sense, trying to renaet the sean between Planek and Mach, Mac’seritiim des notallow the phyeiisto “pres lechimselG” to define his vocation, beeause the words offered require that he deny his pssion for trath. I the facile proposition able todo o? Can the vision of a "physi world” efented by Planck lee ts sedaivenees? Cant be recognized 54 "Uetault” response, aceptng, fr want of anything better, the adversary’ references, the opposition betwee antfetsh- iste rationality and an rational but feo ft? Can factishes frve physicists froma mode of pretension that eneioves them in an alermative tat ie somewhat voluerable ta irony either invoking faith st would lead then forwad the way erro leads donkey, of Inyng clan to the eucestes of physics in oder to afm that itis elly on it way to achieving its quest forthe world’s ruth for penetrating "theming of god"? Iie not uptometn decide Tnany event the touchstone of my undertaking s much ess the fabricators themselves than the way in which they are, or might be, present amongus "Tae sciences, sb heyare taught, thats a they are presented ‘once ther result are unlinked from the practices of scienee “as ida practiced” do not havea meaning that is appreciably dit {erent fom religious engine of wat pointing et the path to salvation, condemning sin and dalatry And nt hy appeal- ingtoaa improved “sientifielure that cis problem igo ‘0 be resolved-the problom ofthe mode of existence among 1 of newtrnos, genes, fowl, and ather ecieniseereatutes. ‘That such a care is what i lvays missing, dhe thing whose thoence is always invoked, whose existence would be x kind of panacea. without anyone being abe to ap whet might co sist of pecans the majority of seiontots are, apparent the first to lack this well-nown culture), ea good efletion ofthe shosty existence of what isbeing invoked A ghost i mat sbvays Jacking in power, however. In some eultres is appearance fovces its members to think connect. act nar culture the sempitraat return of the grea theme of thenecossry ajunet of "conscience" sithout which, pp fey science would he “the rain of the 24” commits wt nothing, because what ig asked is undear. No pratces exis, kino thoze ute hy others toheed whut naa and construct ‘message, amessage that would exeatea difeence. Inourease, ‘would make connection® snd add new questions to thote asked by sotntnts In other words, we are uated by the necessity ‘of siemificeture although our pracicesdonot provide iit the means tex ‘The manner in which the neutrino and othor selene factshes “are presented” to those who da not share in their prodvetion can become a eltral question only if that ealtare ‘saetvely dissociate from "information," from the potsssion of earal knowledge.” An awareness the history ofthe ne ‘wing's cretion andthe prolemsto which reponded eens Prevent its existence from being generated into a “netral” fact, that i, both an euthnsoaad fat that exeryone “should” be familar withst they are tobe medem citzeus, end an avai le fat, which anyone may ple up alu for their own pur poses. The question of knoving how the nevrinus existences, ‘oul be, or will le celebrated doesnot idan answer ether in the wilingnese that recalls, under no obligation that te ‘ences are human works or inthe irony hat ecoguites the work edie the fe. ‘That tne struggle not to forget the couple components of te event that eansed she neutrino exe seems endles and hopeless doesnot reflect a “payologeal”difclty humans prefer to belive than t understand) or an “epistemological” ‘question (he context ofthe jntifestion takes precedence ovee the content of discovery. I reflect the fact that the “ilseo- cry’ ofthe neutrino eno an event key f iterest"mankind™ suc The neutrino does not mark a sep along the pth that leads “mankind” from ignorance o understanding it ove testence to the ft of having ule wht Latour calle avery demanding set of “speifiatons” of having ets very epe- «ite proofs, which allow specie people the community af is {sbricators, to forget the avatar f a fabrication, to csiebrate lisexistence “in itself" I something isto he elebated or must foree others to think, iis not the neuen bat the eopreduc= ‘ion ofa community an areal of which, rom now on rom ‘he plat of view ofthe community, the neu ian integral ‘nt, Sach an event has et to deserve intresting others. The ‘taal traditions that are not aeftshistcltvate wach an Interest. They know how the constructs of fetishes need 19 be addresed, what canbe expected of them, why they shoal be feared. To consider the weal, ealtral, ad pail press ‘ne among us ofthe highly spect communities formed by the constructors of fctisher may boa way of “uateilcing” the hoaly reference ascitic clare that aes lacking, Ths “scataration” of the neutrino i therefore, a prct- «al question, inseparable from the relationships that need tobe ‘developed wth those who brought itso existence, those whose proofs tsatisied. Ocherthan tao "neat fact” the newt ‘identity wil find stability onl ina nese of rationships ‘through which new “immanent modes of existence” for eur races are invented, The touchstone f the faeishiste prop sition, and more ypecically of wht Iam trying odo with i, lanotto convince seentat ato beng aha 9 ranformation of the interest that identify them. And this of eee, doe ‘understood in the adiclly indeterminate see authored by ‘the concept of intrest dhe way in which whatone does interests thers that, becomes an integral pao the prevent of others, or “oats” for others, doesnot eons with the way in which ne is intersted in wht abe dove eneself, but isan ingredi- ‘ataf i. Whois interested, haw can one be invested, at wht rice by wht neans and under what enstrints-thes re not secondary questions associated with the “fusion” of knowl edge. They ae the ingredients of ta ieatty, that iy the way in which exis for others and he way imwhichtaltustes oh NOTES fer volumes VV, VI. and VIE {sal don Veh efrener tun ‘ube een ok nator fy thesutberandvae sh rom he o03 Fett een,el 1 ee Date Fee: a nn somos, bale Sega {Gs Naat ann) doe no sperin Engh ranula Se elle Stenger neon exten (ates Uv Minswnts ra 990.48 “Pes Mano -Di let ee Pease Weis” Ra en een sea, ay oe gh errs” Cppconocal pen.” brome scp dtr ‘nee the drinton beeen hioy and eet, ey pyehowol [ote freer, The cmp jer "ypes™ and "indies hat he ye elie agen sey hi eal Benson’ lam of En thoy tei ae well me the el W unten on, “Quota ecunThe nde Dred “ ‘Wid Olnnaote:Univeraty of Minot ree 2000) 04 My reckon onal tou in dnp Ca. tan Setapa by Cer Dale aa Fl Guar, Rober ise MSc te ao epi Urry Mi 9, For enarabepreation af thei crac dint, see Pans Zuri Da penn: Osi raced to. Tt wy probably com where ses ree eh kof decison making oh limon ao age susie Mera ety sy, ee arent ar an wores ro ewannen 3 ipaing Eee’ poe ery of tv Morse, eh 3 lel the cane” verg bought omy he oor dnensl Sor ‘Bee of general manly Heo Dado Ogg. 1909) he st ‘Set of ite work th doe nt amon eat he ‘eran ment porting od dive bres Daca “apa wt aaeaed nhmporens tobe mprie cleat ‘nlenaaned porta pilspbers Sdn, eR demise Soutien Ps Hermans ga) Meron pee hat ‘hepa dei quan ya ord ppl o aeep may ey vl ole “Thre ame ie ob thre ere tse sl. reser woud qui retrtoa eet correinag Teanbetethnghtfhewavere- i ae Paoe expen? Gp. Temps pint bers he Bactlrin iinophca

    You might also like