Talk:Science in Action (book)

lack of content, bad discussion
this article has many problems. the actual description of the content is thin and extremely incomplete. even worse, the critique lacks any real argument. in fact it is just a polemic quote. i would either remove it or elaborate on the actual position of the reviewer. also, the response is much too long and has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. the advantages and disadvantages of ANT should be discussed in the actual article. a reference to the controversies ("science wars" and issues of the social construction of society) should be enough. no need for ideological squabble here.

best, alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.255.192 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when does Wikipedia endorse original criticism on article pages?
The section "response to criticism" both seems like original research (completely no citations, written in a very partial style) and is written in a way that clearly violates NPOV, as in "illustrates how Amsterdamska crucially failed to understand Latour" (this is a clearly evaluative remark). Ilintar (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

– It's unclear whether the primary topic for the term "Science in Action" is the book (the current subject at Science in Action) or Science in Action (radio programme) per historical significance and page view count. Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Science in Action → Science in Action (book)
 * Science in Action (disambiguation) → Science in Action
 * Support In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

to do: expand criticism section to a reception section.
i'm sure we can find commentary about this book to give us more of a sense of how this book has been received, both situating it in comparison to latour's other work, as well as within the broader fields of philosophy of science. Handpigdad (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * moreover, for a book that has been cited extensively, surely the number and scope of the citations on this article could be expanded. Handpigdad (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)