ホメオパシー・占星術・創造論を科学にしたいSTS学者たちもいれば、CSICOP[現CSI]に斬りかかるSTS学者もいる。かつて、1990年に、University of Delawareの哲学およびエネルギー環境政策のPaul T Durbin名誉教授は、STS学者の特徴として反テクノロジーを挙げていた。
STS [Science and Technology Studies] program stands in sharp contrast to STPP [Science and Technology Public Policy] program. In the vast majority of cases, STS professors were trained in the same sorts of graduate programs a STPP professors; that is, they were either scientists and engineers interested in broader issues, or they were trained as historians of science and technology, philosophers of science, etc. The difference is that most STS professors had been strongly influenced by the anti-technology aspects of the student anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s and that a great many are also interdisciplinary, even anti-disciplinary, in their orientation, STS professors, much more so than STPP professors, have rebelled against the sort of graduate training they received. Even now, as STS programs take on a less strident anti-establishment coloring, there is still strong resistance to training a cadre of STS professional scholars.


[Paul T. Durbin: "Broad and narrow interpretations of philosophy of technology", p.xiv, 1990]

A second challenge of STS is, in both micro and macro analyses, to pursue interdisciplinarity by walking a fine line of judicious analysis between promotional enthusiasm and oppositional rejection. In all its incarnations, despite repeated charges to the contrary, it is crucial to note that STS is neither pro-science and technology -- what Langdon Winner has call HSTS "Hooray for Science, Technology and Society" -- nor is it anti-science and technology. To call even the STS movement anti-technology simply because it often subjects science and technology to wholesale criticism is like calling an art critic "anti art". (Winner, 1986, p. xi; and 1989, p.436).

STSの第二の課題は、推進の熱意と反抗の拒絶の間の慎重な分析の微妙な境界線を歩いて学際を追求し、ミクロとマクロの両方の分析を行うことである。あらゆる場面で、繰り返し非難されているが、それとは逆にはSTSは、Langdon innerがHSTSと呼ぶ科学支持・テクノロジー支持でもなければ、アンチサイエンス・アンチテクノロジーではないことを知っておくことは重要である。科学技術を批評するという理由でSTS運動をアンチテクノロジーと呼ぶのは、美術評論家を "反芸術"と呼ぶようなものである。[Winner 1986,P XI;、1989、p.436]

[Stephen H. Cutcliffe, Carl Mitchan: Visions of STS: counterpoints in science, technology, and society studies", p3, 2001]
しかし、今世紀に入ると、STSは宗教右翼に利用されるが、その悪用についてSTSは無力。さらには、Prof. Steve Fullerのように、インテリジェントデザインを支援するSTS学者も登場する。

このような状況に対して、STS学者Casper JensenとGeoffrey C. Bowkerは...
In these wars it is argued, STS might unwillingly be enrolled against science. Such enrolment is possible through an interpretation that sees STS analyses as arguing for relativity – and thereby equality – of all knowledge practices. In this reading STS is thus presented as unable to distinguish between natural selection and intelligent design.

Likewise, misuse of STS argumentation in the science wars, would lead us to think, not that STS should be redefined as a steadfast defenders of traditional science, but that it should help to reconfigure the landscape in which such a war comes to make sense.


[Casper Jensen and Geoffrey C. Bowker"Performative Articulations of STS: On Representation, Materiality and Politics" ]


posted by Kumicit at 2012/03/17 11:38 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | ID: General | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]