It would be nice to be able to define what is specific to our modern scientific culture. It would be still nicer to find the most economical explanation (which might not be the most economic one) of its origins and special characteristics. To arrive at a parsimonious explanation it is best not to appeal to universal traits of nature. Hypotheses about changes in the mind or human consciousness, in the structure of the brain, in social relations, in 'mentalités," or in the economic infrastructure which are posited to explain the emergence of science or its present achievements are simply too grandiose, not to say hagiographic in most cases and plainly racist in more than a few others. Occam's razor should cut these explanations short. No *new man" suddenly emerged sometime in the sixteenth century, and there are no mutants with larger brains working inside modern laboratories who can think differently from the rest of us. The idea that a more rational mind or a more constraining scientific method emerged from darkness and chaos is too complicated a hypothesis.
Source
Latour, B. "Visualization and Cognition: thinking with eyes and hands, in “Knowledge and Society”, 6." (1986): 1-40.
Language
English
Cite as
Bruno Latour, "VISUALIZATION AND COGNITION: THINKING WITH EYES AND HANDS ", contributed by Parikshith Shashikumar, STS Infrastructures, Platform for Experimental Collaborative Ethnography, last modified 16 February 2019, accessed 23 April 2024. https://stsinfrastructures.org/content/visualization-and-cognition-thinking-eyes-and-hands
Critical Commentary
It would be nice to be able to define what is specific to our modern scientific culture. It would be still nicer to find the most economical explanation (which might not be the most economic one) of its origins and special characteristics. To arrive at a parsimonious explanation it is best not to appeal to universal traits of nature. Hypotheses about changes in the mind or human consciousness, in the structure of the brain, in social relations, in 'mentalités," or in the economic infrastructure which are posited to explain the emergence of science or its present achievements are simply too grandiose, not to say hagiographic in most cases and plainly racist in more than a few others. Occam's razor should cut these explanations short. No *new man" suddenly emerged sometime in the sixteenth century, and there are no mutants with larger brains working inside modern laboratories who can think differently from the rest of us. The idea that a more rational mind or a more constraining scientific method emerged from darkness and chaos is too complicated a hypothesis.