Work #1111 · Mid period
Science in Action
Bruno Latour's 1987 methodological textbook — "follow the actors" through science and technology in the making
Bruno Latour
· 1987
· English
· Methodological textbook / Theoretical treatise
Tradition: Science and technology studies / Actor-network theory
Latour's 1987 methodological textbook — "follow the actors" through science and technology in the making
Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (1987) is Latour's methodological textbook, presenting Actor-Network Theory as a research programme. The book offers seven "rules of method" and seven "principles" for studying science and technology "in the making" — before facts and artefacts have been black-boxed. Founding text of Actor-Network Theory (ANT) as a research programme.
Author
Editions cited
- Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Harvard UP, 1987)
School Embodiments
Critical Theory
20%
Foundational text of Actor-Network Theory and broader STS critical-theoretical work.
"The fate of facts and machines is in later users' hands; their qualities are thus a consequence, not a cause, of collective action." (Science in Action)
Pragmatism
15%
Pragmatist sensibility — knowledge as action, science as practical work.
"To study science in action, follow the scientists; do not let them tell you they were merely 'discovering' something already there." (Science in Action)
Postmodernism
15%
Post-structuralist-influenced framework — actor-networks as the proper unit of analysis.
"An actor-network is what is described by the trace left behind by some moving agent — it is not a thing, it is a movement." (Science in Action)
Realism
10%
Realist about the heterogeneous-material networks — they are not mere discourse.
"An actor-network includes humans and non-humans alike; the network is real even where the actors are unfamiliar." (Science in Action)
Naturalism
10%
Naturalist orientation — STS as empirical study of techno-scientific practice.
"The principle of symmetry — humans and non-humans treated with the same descriptive vocabulary — is a methodological commitment, not a metaphysical claim." (Science in Action)
Cybernetics
10%
Information-theoretic and cybernetic resonances — actor-networks as information-mobilising machines.
"Centres of calculation accumulate inscriptions from periphery and mobilise them as resources for action." (Science in Action)
Engages and challenges analytic-metaphysical conceptions of fact, cause, and existence.
"Facts and machines are not the cause of agreement; agreement is the cause of facts and machines being treated as such." (Science in Action)
Internal Tensions
ANT has become a major research programme; foundational debates concern the symmetric treatment of humans and non-humans, and the political consequences of network analysis.
⧖
I. Time
The 1970s-80s STS research that the book methodologises.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Substantival
Grain: Continuous
Freedom: Non-Deterministic
Traversability: Linear
Direction: Uni-directional
Dimensionality: One
✦
II. Space
The actor-network spaces — laboratories, technology firms, the institutional infrastructure of techno-science.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Relational
Curvature: Flat
Dimensionality: Three
Locality: Non-Local
◉
III. Matter
The heterogeneous material participants — humans and non-humans — of actor-networks.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Relational
Conservation: Conserved
Dimensionality: Three
Locality: Non-Local
◎
IV. Observer
The "follow-the-actors" STS researcher as proper observer.
Attributes
Time Instance: Single
Space Instance: Single
Knowledge Extent: Partial
Knowledge Retainment: Partial
Physicality: Embodied
Agency: Active
Number: Plural
Metaphysical Agency: None
⚡
V. Energy
The mobilising energies of network-building.
Attributes
Extent: Infinite
Ontological Status: Substantival
Conservation: Conserved
Dispersibility: Irreversible
⧉
VI. Information
The inscriptions-and-citations that constitute actor-network knowledge-production.
Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival
Cosmic Conservation: Variable
Personal Conservation: Variable
Granularity: Discrete
Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint
Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.
Computed school proximity
The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.
How Science in Action resolves each dilemma
31 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 13 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 26 unaligned.
Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.
Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive
Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken
Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) ·
Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) ·
The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken
Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) ·
The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) ·
Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken
Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) ·
The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) ·
The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions
Do you really choose?
The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it.
69%
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real.
69%
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible.
69%
How much weight do future people deserve?
Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much.
47%
Is regret rational?
The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing.
47%
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing.
47%
Matter · 7 dilemmas · 3 distinctive
What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(33/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
On this view, matter is not a stuff but a patterning — the standing relations among things, ancestors, processes, and places. The creatio-ex-nihilo question doesn't quite arise, because the ontology has no slot for a free-standing substance to be created or eternal. What persists is …
Roads not taken
Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) ·
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) ·
Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(33/202)
Is the physical world fully real?
Realists, idealists, and relationalists divide on whether matter exists mind-independently, derivatively, or as a pattern of relations. The split runs deeper than any single scientific question.
Real as relations — neither pure substance nor pure construction.
On this view, the physical world is real, but its reality is the reality of a pattern: the standing relations among things, processes, and ancestors. Asking whether matter is mind-independent imposes a substance-language the view doesn't accept. What is real is the relational fabric; matter …
Roads not taken
Yes — the physical world is fully real, mind-independent, persisting. (55%) ·
Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense. (23%) ·
Real for this cycle — the deepest reality cycles through creation and dissolution. (4%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree
(33/202)
Does matter have intrinsic moral standing?
Do rocks, soil, rivers, and stuff in general deserve moral consideration — or only the living, the conscious, the human? The answer turns on what matter is.
Matter has intrinsic moral standing as part of the relational fabric.
On this view, the river, the mountain, the soil, the ancestor's land are not background but full participants in the relational world. Their moral standing is not derivative on what they do for anyone; it is constitutive of who 'anyone' is. Harm to them is …
Roads not taken
Matter is morally considerable insofar as it is created or conserved good. (55%) ·
Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains. (23%) ·
Matter is in flux; standing is impermanent and ritual-mediated. (4%)
Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive
Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken
No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) ·
No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) ·
Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(27/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken
No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) ·
No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) ·
Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree
(27/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
On this view, memory is the readout of discrete information stored in the substrate: engrams, synaptic weights, file-like records. Reconstruction at retrieval is real but secondary; without the stored bits there would be nothing to reconstruct from.
Roads not taken
Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) ·
Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) ·
Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units. (6%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(30/202)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world.
On these views, humans were never outside nature, and the question of our 'place in' it is the question of how to live within the relations that already constitute us. Plants, animals, rivers, ancestors, descendants are not resources or stage scenery; they are kin and …
Roads not taken
Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (48%) ·
Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) ·
Subject to a real natural order we did not make. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree
(30/202)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking.
On relational views, space colonisation is the abstract endpoint of the same pattern that produced ecological crisis on Earth: humans treating themselves as separate from the more-than-human world they are actually inside. To go to Mars in the spirit of leaving Earth is to leave …
Roads not taken
Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (48%) ·
The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) ·
Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows. (12%)
14 mainstream positions
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow.
15%
What happens to "you" when you die?
You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates.
18%
Could causation work backwards?
Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural.
68%
Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us?
The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction.
68%
Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it?
The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description.
68%
Is environmental damage ever truly permanent?
Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation.
66%
Can a civilization recover from collapse?
Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial.
66%
Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally?
Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current.
66%
Can prayer for someone far away affect them?
Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for.
49%
Are coincidences ever more than coincidence?
Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer.
49%
Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom?
The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems.
46%
Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless?
Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical.
46%
Does prayer change God's mind?
If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next.
46%
Are the dead morally present to the living?
Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present.
44%
18 unaligned
Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious?
Schools split: 32% / 29% / 11%
—
Could an AI have a mind that matters?
Schools split: 30% / 30% / 15%
—
Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans?
Schools split: 32% / 29% / 11%
—
Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces?
Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17%
—
Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally?
Schools split: 50% / 29% / 12%
—
Does history have a direction or meaning?
Schools split: 37% / 23% / 19%
—
How is knowledge of reality produced?
Schools split: 25% / 17% / 13%
—
If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived?
Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14%
—
Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge?
Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17%
—
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal?
Schools split: 15% / 14% / 4%
—
Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married?
Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14%
—
Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed?
Schools split: 65% / 16% / 10%
—
Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it?
Schools split: 32% / 28% / 17%
—
What is marriage?
Schools split: 54% / 16% / 15%
—
What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize?
Schools split: 44% / 16% / 14%
—
What makes someone the same person over time?
Schools split: 36% / 29% / 14%
—
When does a person begin?
Schools split: 54% / 16% / 15%
—
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Schools split: 40% / 28% / 14%
—