Massimiliano Simons

In his 2018 essay Down to Earth, the French philosopher Bruno Latour proposes a hypothesis that connects a number of contemporary issues, ranging from climate denialism to deregulation and growing inequality. While his hypothesis, namely that the elites act as if they live in another world and are leaving the rest of the world behind, might seem like a conspiracy theory, I will argue that there is a way to make sense of it. To do so, I will turn to two other authors, Timothy Mitchell and Shoshana Zuboff, to highlight the kind of logic that Latour seems to have in mind. In the final section, I will propose to capture the commonalities of these authors through the concept of shifting reciprocities and will return to Latour’s political plea to define one’s territories, reinterpreted as reciprocities.

Within science fiction the topic of ‘first contact’ is a popular theme. How will an encounter with aliens unfold? Will we succeed in communicating with them? Although such questions are present in the background of many science fiction novels, they are not always explicitly dealt with and even if so, often in a poor way. In this article, I will introduce a typology of five dominant types of solutions to the problem of first contact in science fiction works. The first four solutions are the more dominant, but also the least interesting ones. There is a fifth category that addresses the question of first contact in a more interesting way, exemplified by the work of Stanisław Lem. This fifth option defines itself as a critique of the four previous categories, or of their shared assumption of what Lem (1967) has called ‘the myth of cognitive universality’. Lem is sceptical of the common optimism that first contact will always be successful. In books such as Solaris (1961), His Master’s Voice (1967) and Fiasco (1986), humanity makes first contact with an alien phenomenon, but fails to comprehend the phenomenon. Fundamentally, it will be argued that Lem’s work shows that in such an encounter we will typically not only lack the right answers to our questions, but that we also often lack the correct questions: we simply do not have the right categories or instruments to even recognize, let alone meaningfully interrogate, the alien phenomenon. The article ends with an exploration of the implications of Lem’s pessimism and whether it is the most plausible option for first contact. Moreover, the article will draw some lessons for philosophy of science, by exploring the parallel with the confrontation of novel or deviant phenomena in science. Lem’s work is helpful here because it succeeds in articulating what has not always been appreciated in the philosophy of science, namely that the right questions by which to interrogate scientific phenomena are not given, but that their articulation always requires work.

Massimiliano Simons provides the first systematic study of Serres' work in the context of late 20th-century French philosophy of science. By proposing new readings of Serres' philosophy, Simons creates a synthesis between his predecessors, Gaston Bachelard, Georges Canguilhem, and Louis Althusser as well as contemporary Francophone philosophers of science such as Bruno Latour and Isabelle Stengers. Simons situates Serres' unique contribution through his notion of the quasi-object, a concept, he argues, organizes great parts of Serres' work into a promising philosophy of science as well as a challenge to the narrower field of French epistemology, to which it has often been limited. Simons highlights how the concept encompasses Serres' commitment to positive relations between science and culture and his rejection of pleas to purify the scientific self from imaginative and cultural elements. It helps to situate Serres between the distinct traditions of Bachelard and Latour as well as progressing the innovative aspects of Serres' philosophy for current debates in the philosophy, history, and sociology of science. Showing how Serres' philosophy can serve as a normative approach to science and technology, Michel Serres and French Philosophy of Science takes in themes of materiality, religiosity, modernity and ecology to advance a timely alternative to philosophy of science for contemporary life.

It is commonly accepted that technology and society have always been intertwined. The question is rather how we should understand that relation. This introduction to the special issue ‘Technology and Society’ gives a brief overview of the history of the questions related to this intertwinement. The special issue consists of six essays, emanating from presentations at the 2019 conference on Technology and Society at the Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven. It was organized by the Working Group on Philosophy of Technology, whose aim is to promote philosophy of technology at the KU Leuven, but also more broadly in Belgium.

Synthetic biology aims to synthesize novel biological systems or redesign existing ones. The field has raised numerous philosophical questions, but most especially what is novel to this field. In this article I argue for a novel take, since the dominant ways to understand synthetic biology’s specificity each face problems. Inspired by the examination of the work of a number of chemists, I argue that synthetic biology differentiates itself by a new regime of articulation, i.e. a new way of articulating the questions and phenomena it wants to address. Instead of describing actual existing biological systems, the field aims to describe biological possibilities. In the second part I corroborate this hypothesis through a comparison between early research in the field of the origins of life and contemporary synthetic biologists, who are not so much interested in the historical origin of life on Earth, but rather in a universal biology of the possible origins of any life whatsoever.

Ian Hacking’s Representing and Intervening is often credited as being one of the first works to focus on the role of experimentation in philosophy of science, catalyzing a movement which is sometimes called the “philosophy of experiment” or “new experimentalism”. In the 1980s, a number of other movements and scholars also began focusing on the role of experimentation and instruments in science. Philosophical study of experimentation has thus seemed to be an invention of the 1980s whose central figure is Hacking. This article aims to assess this historical claim, made by Hacking himself as well as others. It does so first by highlighting how a broader perspective on the history of philosophy reveals this invention narrative to be incorrect, since experimentation was a topic of interest for earlier philosophers. Secondly, the article evaluates a revision of this historical claim also made by some philosophers of experiment: the rediscovery narrative, which frames Hacking and others as having rediscovered the work of these earlier authors. This second narratives faces problems as well. Therefore we develop a third narrative which we call the contextualist narrative. Rather than considering experimentation in an essentialist manner as a fixed research object that is either present or not in the work of specific authors, experimentation should be addressed through a narrative that asks in what way it becomes a philosophical problem for certain authors and for what purpose. Such contextualization enables a repositioning of Hacking’s philosophy of experiment in relation to the specific debates in which he intervened, such as the realism-antirealism debate, the Science Wars and the debate on incommensurability.

In this paper, we investigate how the life and work of Louis Rougier relate to the broader political dimension of logical empiricist philosophy. We focus on three practical projects of Rougier in the 1930s and 1940s: first, his attempts to integrate French-speaking philosophers into an international network of scientific philosophers by organizing two Unity of Science conferences in Paris; second, his role in the renewal of liberalism through the organization of the Walter Lippmann Colloquium; and third, his attempts at political negotiations between Great Britain and the Vichy regime during the Second World War. These activities of Rougier in the 1930s and 1940s have so far never been discussed as part of a unified project on his part. Based on our investigations of these practical projects of Rougier, we argue that his relation to logical empiricist philosophers should primarily be understood on the level of action. His projects aimed to proliferate the concrete improvement of society and the lives of its citizens by expunging all metaphysical questions and speculations from the sphere of social discourse. Rougier conceived logical empiricist philosophers as allies to achieve such practical effects in society.

This article examines how minimal genome research mobilizes philosophical concepts such as minimality and essentiality. Following a historical approach the article aims to uncover what function this terminology plays and which problems are raised by them. Specifically, four historical moments are examined, linked to the work of Harold J. Morowitz, Mitsuhiro Itaya, Eugene Koonin and Arcady Mushegian, and J. Craig Venter. What this survey shows is a historical shift away from historical questions about life or descriptive questions about specific organisms towards questions that explore biological possibilities: what are possible forms of minimal genomes, regardless of whether they exist in nature? Moreover, it highlights a fundamental ambiguity at work in minimal genome research between a universality claim and a standardization claim: does a minimal genome refer to the minimal gene set for any organism whatsoever? Or does it refer rather to a gene set that will provide stable, robust and predictable behaviour, suited for biotechnological applications? Two diagnoses are proposed for this ambiguity: a philosophical diagnosis of how minimal genome research either misunderstands the ontology of biological entities or philosophically misarticulates scientific practice. Secondly, a historical diagnosis that suggests that this ambiguity is part of a broader shift towards technoscience.

In this article, two different claims about nature are discussed. On the one hand, environmental philosophy has forced us to reflect on our position within nature. We are not the masters of nature as was claimed before. On the other hand there are the recent developments within synthetic biology. It claims that, now at last, we can be the masters of nature we have never been before. The question is then raised how these two claims must be related to one another. Rather than stating that they are completely irreconcilable, I will argue for a dialogue aimed to discuss the differences and similarities. The claim is that we should not see it as two successive temporal phases of our relation to nature, but two tendencies that can coexist.

The central claim of this article is that post-truth requires a political and socio-economical perspective, rather than a moral or epistemological one. The article consists of two parts. The first part offers a critical examination of the dominant analyses of post-truth in terms of shifting standards of the origin and the evaluation of facts. Moreover, the claim that postmodernism is the cause of post-truth is examined and refuted. In the second part an alternative perspective is developed, centring around the notion of gatekeepers. Rather than linking post-truth to bullshit and postmodernism, it should be understood as a symptom of a contemporary shift in the gatekeepers of truth and knowledge. Knowledge and truth are always mediated in society through the hands of gatekeeping institutions such as journalism or science. Post-truth is a symptom of a broader transformation of the gatekeeping institutions of our current society. It therefore requires a political philosophy of these institutional shifts and the new risks they involve.

This article argues that pseudoscience lacks an adequate philosophical analysis. Using conspiracy theories as a case study, it is claimed that such an analysis needs to go beyond a mere epistemological approach. In the first part, it is shown that the existing philosophical literature shares the assumption that conspiracy theories are primarily deficient scientific hypotheses. This claim is contested, because such an approach can only understand what conspiracy theories fail to be, but not what they are and why people tend to endorse them. To develop an alternative, the second part starts from recent sociology of science, applied to conspiracy theories, that claims that both true and false theories are in need of a symmetrical social explanation. However, this opens the path to relativism because it does not allow for a significant distinction between scientific and conspiracy theories. In the third section an alternative analysis of conspiracy theories is offered, which does not abandon this distinction. Moreover, it is claimed that the most important element of conspiracy theories is not their truth value but rather their symbolic structures of meaning. The aim of conspiracy theories, and perhaps of pseudoscience in general, is then not to know facts about the world, but rather to offer a meaningful framework within which to live.

The aim of this chapter is to show how Francophone PS, or what is called French (historical) epistemology, embodies this interconnectedness. Moreover, a novel approach to what constitutes French epistemology will be developed here, going beyond a purely historical survey or a reevaluation of a range of concepts found in this tradition.7 The aim is instead to highlight two methodological principles at work in French epistemology that are often in tension with one another, but are not recognized as such in the literature.

The starting point of this PhD project is a constructivist interpretation of scientific practices: science does not study independent and pre-given phenomena, but constructs them in an active way. Although this topic has already been argued for in general, this project wants to focus on recent emerging life sciences, such as systems biology, Artificial Life and synthetic biology. These disciplines bring forth an extreme form of this constructivist aspect: they actively and explicitly produce biological phenomena, such as synthetic cells that do not exist outside of the laboratories. It is, however, unclear what this ‘construction’ of nature entails. There are multiple interpretations of how to understand these technical mediations and how this constructive element either shows the uniqueness of scientific practices or precisely shows how there is nothing special about scientific practices in relation to other practices. On the one hand this project wants to identify the different interpretations of constructivism in science: what does it in fact mean to claim that science constructs its object? Secondly, it wants to differentiate the notion of constructivism itself, by abandoning it as a general claim to more local, historical claims. This allows us to differentiate how a discipline, such as synthetic biology, is constructive in a unique sense, rather than being classified merely as one illustration of constructivism. This allows us to make room for the singularity of synthetic biology: in what specific way is synthetic biology a constructive practice?

Although Michel Foucault is often discussed as a political philosopher, his work can also be place within the tradition of French historical epistemology. However, in contrast to Gaston Bachelard or Georges Canguilhem, his work has been more open to the critique of relativism. The question that will be raised here is in what way one can understand his seemingly relativist conclusions about science, while being part of a science admiring tradition. Different models will be proposed, ranging from a total break, a total identification, to a radicalization of historical epistemology by Foucault.

That scientific practices can be interpreted as constructive practices that create their own objects rather than describing objects out there is a spreading idea within philosophy of science. But while normally the claim is that this is being done behind the scenes, in the case of synthetic biology it seems to be right in the open. To really comprehend what is going within synthetic biology, the idea of constructivism within philosophy must therefore be revised and differentiated in particular types of what it means to construct nature.

The emerging field of synthetic biology aims to design biological entities by engineering methods. Nature is explicitly no longer something ‘out there’, but instead as whatever is actively made in scientific laboratories. Although apparently unrelated to the Anthropocene, interesting discussions arise once confronted with each other. On the one hand, authors such as Bruno Latour have forced us to reflect on how we are not the masters of nature as was claimed before. We can even speak of ‘the end of nature’. On the other hand, synthetic biology claims that we can now be the masters of nature we have never been before. Nature exists indeed, namely the nature that we have created in the laboratory. How to relate these two perspectives? Their simultaneous emergence appears paradoxical, but must not too hastily result in the conclusion that synthetic biology is merely the latest shape of our childish, modern dreams. Rather synthetic biology can be a critical interrogator of the ‘end of nature’. Can we really endorse that it is impossible to “return to a pre-modern notion of nature” and this “take-offpoint is irretrievably lost”? Or must we make the more modest claim, that modern projects often fail, but that success is not excluded? I argue that Latour mix up two possible conclusions: starting from the correct conclusion that we are uncertain that we are certain they jump to stating that we are certain that we are uncertain, which does not follow. We can never be certain again that we can reduce things to passive nature, although it might work for some cases, perhaps even synthetic biology.

The work of Michel Serres, if considered at all, is often presented as a radical break with or criticism of the work of Gaston Bachelard. The aim of this paper is to correct this image, by focusing on the early Hermes series by Serres. In these studies Serres still portrays himself as a follower of Bachelard, rather than an adversary. This is exemplarily shown in his neologism, i.e. the new new scientific spirit, referring to the attempt to update Bachelard in the light of more recent scientific developments. This shows how the roots of Serres’ philosophy lie not in a radical break with Bachelard, but must be understood rather as a Bachelardian criticism of Bachelard himself. This Bachelardian criticism consists in what could be called his surrationalism: the sciences do not follow the categories imposed by philosophers, but are always more flexible and open than these categories allow. The philosopher should follow this scientific flexibility, rather than trying to contain it in his or her categories. Instead of abandoning Bachelard’s perspective, Serres’ criticisms can therefore be understood as a radicalisation of Bachelard’s thought. Specific critiques of Serres, such as those concerning the novelty of Bachelard’s thought, the role of epistemology, the role of normativity, and finally the role of politics, and their consequences will be evaluated through a reappraisal of this Bachelardian move that underlies Serres’ criticism. Finally, this can also open a path to reassess the relation between Bachelard and Bruno Latour or Isabelle Stengers, who can be considered as followers of Serres.

What is ‘biohacking’? In fact, it refers to multiple things. Firstly, it refers to ‘hacking the body’, artificially enhancing one’s own body by technology and tinkering. A good example is the ‘grinder’ movement. Secondly, it also refers to ‘hacking the biology’, aiming to appropriate the methods and objects of the life sciences for our own benefit. This is at work in ‘Do-It-Yourself Biology’, inspired by synthetic biology. Both strands, however, share the same ambition to emancipate ourselves from traditional constraints of biology and evolution – but they might also share the same problems.

Do-It-Yourself biology or DIYbio aims to open the field of molecular biology to all who are interested by showing that it can be done within one’s own garage or by opening community labs. In this sense it can be considered as one of the contemporary shapes of citizen or ‘amateur’ science. A great part of the existing literature focuses on how these cases can be seen as the sign of a democratization of science. However, within these studies it is often forgotten that many of the members of the movements such as DIYbio are well-trained scientists with PhDs and other official credentials. Not only can this fact problematize the claims made by these studies, but it is also something that they cannot explain. Why do certified rocket scientists feel the need to design rockets outside of the official institutions? Why do biologists with a PhD stop their training and start tinkering in their basements? Beyond a general introduction to DIYbio, this paper aims to do three things. First of all it aims to analyze the phenomenon at the level of discourse, mainly focusing on the anti-institutional element of DIYbio. Rather than seeing this citizen science as merely a form of the democratization of the sciences, its origins lay within a deep-rooted critique on existing institutions such as the universities and the biotech industry. Secondly, these discourses are contrasted conceptually with the possible historical origins of the movement, ranging from synthetic biology, hackerspaces to the biotech industry itself. The central question will be: even if at a discourse level they present themselves as the renaissance of biology, are there other tendencies, histories and origins present in their practices? Thirdly, an attempt will be made to sketch possible future scenarios of DIYbio, based on personal experiences of setting up and maintaining a DIYbio lab and community, insights as a member of the global DIYbio movement and experience in implementing professional services in the DIYbio and maker sphere. Three observations will be at the core of this discourse. Firstly, DIYbio today encompasses many different kinds of initiatives that practise biosciences in new ways, all as a mutation on its initial conception in 2008. Local groups that started out similarly, diversified over the years according the intentions of the local communities. Secondly, more and more attempts at professionalising are being made in older communities. An anti-institutional element is often kept and used as a competitive advantage against the establishment. Finally, DIYbio benefits from developments in the sharing economy and growing freelance culture. How do these factors work together and do they have the potential for systemic change?

This paper aims to evaluate the different approaches to history within contemporary French philosophy of science, especially related to the benefits and necessity of normative judging. Within the French tradition of historical epistemology, there has always been a combination between a historical and philosophical perspective. This has resulted in numerous methodological reflections on this topic still relevant for contemporary debates within IHPS. Generally this centered around the question to what extent clear philosophical starting points where a merit and necessity, or rather a bias and obstacle. In recent French philosophy of science this tension let to the search for a third approach. Inspired by developments within sociology of science, they criticize the overemphasis on judging history from the present. But rather than abandoning all philosophical perspective, their claim is that history of science itself produces philosophical norms or ‘obligations’ within particular sciences. This, however, does not result in abandoning the earlier approaches, but rather their reappraisal. Earlier internal criticisms within HEP can be reread as claiming that the opponent fails to live up to this requirement, i.e. to follow history’s own obligations, rather than imposing them. The claim defended in this paper is that the merit of certain philosophical approaches must be tested linked to obligations within specific disciplines. Concretely, this will be evaluated through examples from recent history of molecular biology, especially synthetic biology and metagenomics. The specific obligations of these disciplines will be analysed and evaluated according to the different frameworks within French philosophy of science.

Within French epistemology the question is central whether the present can be a reference point for the history of science or whether scientific practices should be understood within their own historical context. Both positions are linked with problems: either it results in a ‘whig history’ written from the perspective of the victors or it leads to the accusation of relativism and to resistance from the scientists themselves. Isabelle Stengers claims that this resistance by scientists must be considered as an essential element in the historiography of the sciences. She is part of a more recent generation of French philosophers of science, who build on the work of the earlier generation but with significant differences. Stengers interprets the scientist’s work as ‘in the service of history’: everyone must be forced to recognize their work not as the product of personal construction but as a necessary discovery in the history of science. The work of the historian of science is in conflict with the aims of the scientists themselves, who want to be seen as the norm of the present by which one should read the history of science. This service of history is not some external ideological factor, but an internal part of the scientific practice itself. The construction of the difference between the discovery of a pre-given fact and the construction of a fiction is for Stengers the core of the scientific practices. This use of history will be illustrated by the case of synthetic biology, as described by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent. Synthetic biologists are invoking specific past or future scenario’s, such as that of synthetic chemistry or computer engineering, to legitimatize their current research projects and ambitions. From this perspective, the problematic tension between the past and the present is so hard to cope with because it is not merely a struggle among historians and philosophers of science, but also among the scientists themselves.