[AJames]

Originally Posted by mlcolbert

Read Latour, Science in Action.

Michael,

I have just obtained a borrowed copy of the Bruno Latour's book "Science in Action" you have referred here. At a casual glance, it seems to be almost a gross, even twisted or distortion view of science, that goes out of its way to show how science has been highjacked by some conspiracy of bureaucrats and groups of scientists to non-ethical ends.
I will be reading this in detail in the next day or two, but I feel I can already say it has nothing really to do with the current planetary status of Pluto. The IAU, as you highlight, has made a decision - but I fail to see how else this could be done differently. Scientific organisations are basically made to satisfy the memberships knowledge that can inform views - often in a reduced non-mathematical critique - so that our Society can digest and learn from.
Clearly, Bruno Latour is a renown science philosopher, who has been quoted by one of his students has "... produced a highly heterodox* and controversial picture of the sciences", but his views of the sociology in sciences is far removed form your "idiot" comments (in the earlier post) towards the IAU and its delegates in Prague.
Writers like Latour have been considered by the pure scientists as literally activists - especially in the view that the views of scientists (and engineers) were increasingly at loggerheads against the norm of the "public's self-interest". If this was your view as a proponent - which I rightly assumed from your original post. (Hence my statement of the conversion of individuals to become non-scientific "revolutionaries" and "zealotry" - meaning her "fanatical enthusiast.") While you are obviously, (from your second post) far from this - there are many who are. Ie. The religious Intelligent Design supporters, etc.
Whilst perhaps the scientific methodology, decision and adaption of "science" ideas to be disseminated and funded might be improved somewhat - or even perhaps presented in a different way - there are few who can disagree with the professional groups of independent peers - an historical method of adjudging credible or non-fraudulent scientific works. Most Scientific Organisations are far more knowledgeable and closer to the real point of study of sometimes esoteric corners of understanding. Most scientists, unlike what is presented on television, are a highly moral lot - especially in astronomy - as their studies have few implications other than understanding the physical relationships of the Universe. It has no real practical technological spin-offs - other than the new technology used to gain useful observations.
Although Latour's view seems both thought provoking and challenging, they are far removed from our little IIS discussion group on the tread discussed here - and a few, probably including myself, might have troubles expressing a solid self-consistent constructive argument. (Even teaching students, other than undergraduates in either 2nd or 3rd year University, who would find Latour's principles on cultural observations of science heavy going.) Furthermore, his arguments appear mainly aimed towards the science biology - whose commercial motives are based on profit through pharmaceutical drugs or genetics (to quote your example) to fix ills and diseases, or even anthropology, political science, etc. [In this case Latour might be actually right!]
I really fail to see what the so-called "Science and Technology Studies" (STS) has to do really with the science of astronomy - especially regarding risks (other then comets and asteroid impacts of the Earth) or technological innovations in our Society.

For me, Pluto's demotion was actually based on (still incomplete) scientific definitions, which sadly has been grossly distorted and used against the science of astronomy unfairly by the media.

1) Other than holding this stance, would you be able to express more about specifically EXAMPLES of what "underhanded political machinations", as you say, were used by the IAU. (Even though it is incomplete, as you have stated in your post)

2) How has (or does) this continues to truly affect the social fabric of our general non-scientific community?

Regards,
Andrew

* Heterodox - adjective : [One] not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs.