Response to Science in Action Part C

Latour draws interesting analogies to bring about an understanding of his concept "Writing texts that withstand the assaults of a hostile environment." Latour says scientists need to write prose in a fashion that they are protecting their argument against the reader's strength of critical analysis. Writing in technical detail is shielding their position from being sacked by others like how a castle builds walls and moats to protect what's inside. Latour makes it feel like a battle is being raged in which an unprepared challenger will surely fail. It's "scientific David fighting against the rhetorical Goliath." Latour sees a specific structure in which a argument has the best chance to become "black-boxed." Stratification as a key element in that vision, and the more layers the better. Using visual aids in your argument allows the reader to see the evidence with their own eyes in order to come to the same conclusion. If they doubt the meaning of what they are seeing they can simply read the explanation in the legend. Latour also uses the analogy of firing a musket compared with firing a machine-gun when they are referencing other scientists. Latour compares Hall's and Packer's text as Hall being a lone wolf as one of the first baboon watchers while Packer several decades later is in a pack of scientists who not only watches baboons--but also watch each other. I think that's an important point Latour brings up. As a new field develops the first scientists are in "uncharted" territory and don't have the asset of other scientists to lean on or who are as knowledgeable about the subject as they are.