Speaking at Claremont

October 21, 2013 § 9 Comments

Flyer_SCHEDULEPolTheoryEntangle_Conference

I’ll be giving a talk on Cosmopolitics through the Center for Process Studies at Claremont this Friday. Feel free to stop by if you’re in the area. Details are posted above.


Philosophies of Significance

October 9, 2013 § 46 Comments

tumblr_mpu617LJ6g1sa1bljo1_500[Photo: Casey Cripe]

Alva Noë recently posted a short commentary on the entanglement of science and values. I think readers will be interested in it. At first blush Noë’s point is fairly straight forward: Science and values are always entangled because the very characteristics science depends on — reason, consistency, coherence, plausibility, and replicability — are themselves values. Without some kind of agreement that these are the values that best serve the creation of scientific facts there would be no foundation upon which the sciences could maintain consistency. Science depends on a set of extra-scientific decisions, and we need to pursue and cultivate these decisions in order for the possibility of science to emerge in the first place. Simple enough. « Read the rest of this entry »

Isabelle Stengers and Donna Haraway Sawyer Seminar Audio

May 21, 2013 § 5 Comments

Isabelle Stengers Lecture Part 1:

Isabelle Stengers Lecture Part 2:

 

Donna Haraway Response and Q & A:

Isabelle Stengers and Donna Haraway Sawyer Seminar Notes

May 21, 2013 § 7 Comments

tumblr_ncarpgSpf91tm5pvvo1_500

[Image: Ger Kelliher]

Cosmopolitics and reconstituting worlds; Concrete political clashes between worlds; 1995 majority of French population believes the future of their children to be worse than their own; the end of the trust in progress; Globalization; sacrifice for competition; Political Ontology; civilizing modern practices

What are concepts good for? Science wars—scientists and critical thinkers—rationality, universality; modern hegemony—knowledge cannot be about representation only

Concepts have a power; the self-confirming power of representationalism; the concept of practice is introduced to divide scientists (to break “Science” up); open up a space for thought in which the monolithic figure of objective knowledge is broken

Reformulating the claims of the sciences rather than directly denying them—situating objectivity as a rare achievement. The particular and exceptional nature of objective interpretation; the general reduction. « Read the rest of this entry »

Proposal Summary for Volume on Vulnerability and Ontology

May 6, 2013 § 16 Comments

musil_5

A few weeks ago, Jeremy Trombley brought up the idea of publishing an edited volume on vulnerability. The idea generated a lot of interest, and, since then, Jeremy and I have been working in the background to write up an abstract to submit to Punctum Books, and to share with others who might be interested. Our aim in this project is of an interdisciplinary nature, and therefore we welcome constructive suggestions from people working in the humanities, social sciences, ecology, and more. As we continue to improve upon and finalize our manuscript proposal we welcome feedback in the form of comments or emails. Your suggestions will help us to deepen and complexify the final form of this volume. « Read the rest of this entry »

Bruno Latour’s Gifford Lectures 1-6

March 5, 2013 § 8 Comments

(1) ‘Once Out of Nature’ – Natural Religion as a Pleonasm

« Read the rest of this entry »

Making the Geologic Now

February 26, 2013 § 1 Comment

GeoNow_Front-Cover_web-713x1024

In the 1870s Italian geologist Antonio Stoppani made a radical argument: we can no longer justifiably call our geological age the Holocene. Instead, Stoppani argued, geologists must concede that human behavior had caused enough radical change in the functioning of the Earth to warrant the naming of a new era. He suggested the term “Anthropozoic” to describe this new world. The name did not stick. But in the year 2000 something similar happened with quite different results. Dutch Chemist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen began to publicly admonish his colleagues use of the word “Holocene.” Again, Crutzen argued that humans had caused enough change to the Earth’s geological systems to warrant a new epoch. He called it the “Anthropocene.” This time the notion struck the scientific community with greater weight, and Cutzen published a paper on the idea in a 2002 issue of the journal Nature. Where Stoppani’s colleagues had found the idea of the “Anthropozoic” unscientific Crutzen’s were willing to investigate. Since then the Anthropocene has become an increasingly used term to describe the intersection of human behavior with the deep structures of the Earth’s evolving dynamics.

« Read the rest of this entry »

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the Actor-Networks and Cosmopolitics category at Knowledge Ecology.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,300 other followers