Reply to Bruno Latour

Abstract

This article contains the concluding remarks of the debate between David Bloor and Bruno Latour. The author points out several rhetorical devices used by Latour in place of argumentation, in order to avoid discussing the main differences between the two authors. He summarizes the discussion with the aim of not falling victim to Latour's tricks and discusses the asymmetries Latour mentions, ultimately demonstrating that they do not address the main critiques of actor-network theory. Bloor concludes that his opponent was unable to provide any rebuttals to claims that he had distorted the main points of the Strong Program. Moreover, Latour's arguments are founded upon an incorrect understanding of the thesis on incomplete determination. Latour claims that his opponent assumes that things do not play any role in their representations, but his opponent actually believes that things simply cannot explain the differences in various notions about them. Bloor responds to Latour's argument about the contradictions of dividing that which it is later difficult to connect, and explains that it is necessary to destroy with the aim of understanding a construction. Bloor also responds to the criticism that he has invented a third type of causality. He claims this criticism is unfounded and that he has not in fact done this; he instead writes that the connection between things and representations is not equivalent to causality. Bloor also claims that the sociology of knowledge is not in fact stagnating, as evidenced by a series of new and original studies produced following this research program. In conclusion, the author claims that by stepping away from a generalized principle of symmetry, Latour is actually renouncing his own position.