Literature and the Laboratory - Michelle Sumovich

Chapters 1 and 2 of Bruno Latour’s Science in Action focus on the elements of science-in-the-making, which occur in the laboratory and then through literature which describes the scientists’ findings. Latour begins with an explanation of the article-writing and claim-making process, prior to his account of the “doing” of science, perhaps because article-reading is relatively more familiar to the average layman. However, despite the familiarity of the article format, the levels of discourse and chaos that exists in the production of science literature is surprising.

Latour discusses modalities as the foundation for how a claim is made, modalities being the varied presentations of ideas in literature. It is an intriguing thought that the shape of an argument can be formed by the passiveness or aggressiveness of presentation and by a simple choice of words. Latour states that “it is around modalities that we will find the fiercest disputes since this is where the behaviour of other people will be shaped” (p 25). Collins (2009) may say that this expresses the inevitability of human influence in science. To some degree, I think that modalities are a function of biases being expressed discretely (and perhaps unintentionally) and subsequently, they provoke the expression of the readers’ own biases about how things are presented. In this sense, Latour suggests that science authors can make or break their position right out of the gate because our opinions and biases are larger than the scientific matter at hand. But to what extent can modality be controlled for, and should it be?

This chapter also makes us realize a degree of vulnerability experienced by scientists who rely on the reference of previous (credible) work, the acceptance of the upstream (and perhaps downstream) community, and the success of this work as expressed by its citation within well-founded articles in the future. To curb this “hostile environment,” Latour offers positioning tactics such as stacking, staging, framing, and captation to guide the success of one’s argument. Here he encourages science authors to be courageous with their logic...but not too courageous; to leave their readers free to discuss the claim, while subtly controlling the objectors‘ criticisms. In order to stay afloat, the author must find a balance between positive and negative modalities which makes his article neither too passive nor aggressive for certain audiences. However, as addressed in our class discussions and readings about framing, this process runs the risk of compromising the context of and data from the original study. The larger a controversy grows, the greater the risk of the data becoming misused and removed from its original intention. The differential use of “internal virtues,” as discussed by Kosso, show us how study 1 can be used to support study 2 against author 1’s intentions. I fear that an over-emphasis on positioning exaggerates non-scientific elements of a paper, and may subsequently make it more vulnerable to the manipulation of contrasting virtues which enable author 2 to “change” a study without ever taking it back into the laboratory.

But fortunately Latour does take us into the laboratory to discuss the tests and methods which produce the data, graphs, and theories that are expressed through literature. He states that once in the lab, it is much more difficult for the dissenter to challenge a claim because here they can see the “proof” with their own eyes. But on the other hand, one must examine the credibility of “proof” as it is expressed either through actual instrument readings and measurements or through the conclusions drawn from them. Moreover, one must consider the accuracy of the readings and measurements that are being used. Latour says that it is at this juncture, that one must decide to give up, accept the findings, or recreate the study for himself to measure his results against the current claim.

From Kosso we see that asking for the justification of claims is a necessity, because science is only trust-worthy to the degree that it can justify how nature and the world actually work. His focus as a philosopher of science is on how we approach “the unobservable” to answer questions about these phenomena with whatever fragmentary evidence we do have. Here we replace claims and counter-claims with theories and counter-theories, giving a new and very abstract meaning to ideas of “proof,” “accuracy,” and “credibility.” However, as should be the case with claims, formidable conclusions can only be drawn through the doing of experiments. It seems that in the world of theory, credibility is achieved through the diminishment of hypotheticals.

An important point of these two chapters is that “facts” very rarely ever speak for themselves. If they did, then where would controversy arise? In its purest sense, discourse must evolve from a natural variation of methodologies and personal interpretations of data, from positive and negative modalities, and (un)realized personal biases. In an impure sense, perhaps this type of discourse is born out of explicit “interpretations” of data driven by special interests and personal ethics. I am not so skeptical as to assume that the latter is the norm. However, Latour does make it clear that the longevity of one’s study depends on objectivity and a sufficient amount of support, again conjuring images of being courageous but not too courageous; sensational but not over-sensational. In this sense it becomes somewhat understandable how one may struggle in an internal battle to achieve both credibility and longevity.