he Science of Subjects can be illogical, is normally nonpredictive, nonlinear and complex, and highly self-reflexive: the means of studying it influences the thing studied. It is a comparative exploration of inner belief, psycho-social dynamics, and institutionalisation.

as for nerd revolution
i agree
they are being played
but that’s because it hasn’t come into its own…
yet
(and that is a hope

i don’t get what you mean by
it
in the phrase
reflexivity that would make it a subjective science

i find that dialogue is tricky with this medium

thanks for the ride though

Don’t get me wrong, Latour’s sociology is the best thing going. He’s attempting to get beyond the object/subject divide of the natural and social sciences. Neither did he specifically mention how data does need to be collected on individuals on such a large scale-I don’t think he’s actually noticed it. I simply want to point out that whenever there has been a new type of sociology, the corollary is that there has been new forms of control. This was Ian Hacking’s insight (following Foucault).

Also, I’m definitely not proposing a clear direction. Responses to climate change, for example, probably will require greater monitoring of individuals. This is part and parcel of the pastoral nature of governmentality.

Urry’s sources for his scenarios are bleaker than the actual science makes out. For example, he relies on Lynas, Monbiot and Lovelock for his future scenarios of climate impacts, and their conclusions do not specifically bear out in the IPCC reports nor the Stern report.

enjoying the read
compare to this

nice flow
interesting
informative
not the kind of thing i put my head through regularly

think latour is going down the wrong path
uberstats
and objectification of people…

you do not propose a clear direction
o futurologist…