Editing Science wars (section)

===Continued conflict===
In the first few years after the 'Science Wars' edition of ''Social Text'', the seriousness and volume of discussion increased significantly, much of it focused on reconciling the 'warring' camps of postmodernists and scientists.  One significant event was the 'Science and Its Critics' conference in early 1997; it brought together scientists and scholars who study science and featured Alan Sokal and [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Steve Fuller]] as keynote speakers.  The conference generated the final wave of substantial press coverage (in both news media and scientific journals), though by no means resolved the fundamental issues of [[social construction]] and [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]] in science.<ref>Baringer, Philip S. (2001). "Introduction: 'the science wars'", from ''After the Science Wars'', eds. Keith M. Ashman and Philip S. Baringer. New York: Routledge, p. 2.</ref>

Other attempts have been made to reconcile the two camps. Mike Nauenberg, a physicist at the [[University of California, Santa Cruz]], organized a small conference in May 1997 that was attended by scientists and sociologists of science alike, among them [[Alan Sokal]], [[N. David Mermin]] and [[Harry Collins]]. In the same year, Collins organized the Southampton Peace Workshop, which again brought together a broad range of scientists and sociologists. The Peace Workshop gave rise to the idea of a book that intended to map out some of the arguments between the disputing parties. ''The One Culture?:  A Conversation about Science'', edited by chemist Jay A. Labinger and sociologist Harry Collins, was eventually published in 2001. The book's title is a reference to [[C. P. Snow]]'s ''[[The Two Cultures]]''. It contains contributions from authors such as Alan Sokal, Jean Bricmont, [[Steven Weinberg]], and [[Steven Shapin]].<ref>Labinger, Jay A. and [[Harry Collins]]. (2001). "Preface", in: ''The One Culture?:  A Conversation about Science'', eds. Labinger, Jay A and [[Harry Collins]]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. ix–xi.</ref>

Other significant publications related to the science wars include ''[[Fashionable Nonsense]]'' by Sokal and [[Jean Bricmont]] (1998), ''The Social Construction of What?'' by [[Ian Hacking]] (1999) and ''Who Rules in Science'' by [[James Robert Brown]] (2004).

To [[John C. Baez]], the [[Bogdanov Affair]] in 2002<ref name=Chronicle>{{cite web | last = Monastersky | first = Richard | title = French TV Stars Rock the World of Theoretical Physics | work = [[Chronicle of Higher Education]] | date = 2 November 2002 | url = http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm | access-date = 20 March 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080207103228/http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm |archive-date = 7 February 2008}}</ref> served as the bookend to the Sokal controversy: the review, acceptance, and publication of papers, later alleged to be nonsense, in peer-reviewed physics journals. [[Cornell University|Cornell]] physics professor [[Paul Ginsparg]], argued that the cases are not at all similar and that the fact that some journals and scientific institutions have low standards is "hardly a revelation".<ref name="ginsparg">[[Ginsparg, Paul]]. (12 November 2002). "'Is It Art?'  Is Not a Question for Physics".  ''[[The New York Times]]'', section A, p. 26.</ref> The new editor in chief of the journal ''[[Annals of Physics]]'', who was appointed after the controversy along with a new editorial staff, had said that the standards of the journal had been poor leading up to the publication since the previous editor had become sick and died.<ref name=Chronicle />

Interest in the science wars has waned considerably in recent years.  Though the events of the science wars are still occasionally mentioned in the mainstream press, they have had little effect on either the scientific community or the community of critical theorists.{{Citation needed|date=May 2007}} Both sides continue to maintain that the other does not understand their theories, or mistakes constructive criticisms and scholarly investigations for attacks. In 1999, the French sociologist [[Bruno Latour]]—at the time believing that the natural sciences are [[social constructivism|socially constructivist]]—said, "Scientists always stomp around meetings talking about 'bridging the two-culture gap', but when scores of people from outside the sciences begin to build just that bridge, they recoil in horror and want to impose the strangest of all gags on free speech since [[Socrates]]: only scientists should speak about science!"<ref>Latour, B. (1999). ''[http://www.bruno-latour.fr/livres/vii_tdm.html  Pandora's Hope.  Essays on the Reality of Science Studies] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070904092247/http://www.bruno-latour.fr/livres/vii_tdm.html |date=4 September 2007 }}'', [[Harvard University Press]], US.</ref> Subsequently, Latour has suggested a re-evaluation of sociology's epistemology based on lessons learned from the Science Wars: "...&nbsp;scientists made us realize that there was not the slightest chance that the type of social forces we use as a cause could have objective facts as their effects".<ref>Latour, B. (2005). ''Reassembling the Social.  An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory'', Oxford University Press, US, p. 100.{{ISBN?}}</ref>

Reviewing Sokal's ''[[Beyond the Hoax]]'', Mermin stated that "As a sign that the science wars are over, I cite the 2008 election of Bruno Latour [...] to Foreign Honorary Membership in that bastion of the establishment, the [[American Academy of Arts and Sciences]]" and opined that "we are not only beyond Sokal's hoax, but beyond the science wars themselves".<ref name=":0" />

However, more recently, some of the leading critical theorists have recognized that their critiques have, at times, been counter-productive and are providing intellectual ammunition for reactionary interests.<ref>{{Cite web|author1=SERRC|date=10 July 2017| author2=Erik Baker | author3=Naomi Oreskes | author3-link=Naomi Oreskes | title=It's No Game: Post-Truth and the Obligations of Science Studies |url=https://social-epistemology.com/2017/07/10/its-no-game-post-truth-and-the-obligations-of-science-studies-erik-baker-and-naomi-oreskes/|access-date=8 November 2020|website=Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective|language=en-US|archive-date=30 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930021625/https://social-epistemology.com/2017/07/10/its-no-game-post-truth-and-the-obligations-of-science-studies-erik-baker-and-naomi-oreskes/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Writing about these developments in the context of [[global warming]], Latour noted that "dangerous extremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard-won evidence that could save our lives.  Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies? Is it enough to say that we did not really mean what we said?"<ref>Latour, B. (2004). ''[http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916045752/http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-INQUIRY-GB.pdf |date=16 September 2012 }}'', ''[[Critical Inquiry]]'' 30, pp. 225–48.</ref>

[[Kendrick Frazier]] notes that Latour is interested in helping to rebuild trust in science and that Latour has said that some of the authority of science needs to be regained.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Frazier |first1=Kendrick |author-link=Kendrick Frazier|title='Science Wars' Veteran Latour Now Wants to Help Rebuild Trust in Science |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |year=2018 |volume=42 |issue=1 |page=7}}</ref>

In 2016, [[Shawn Lawrence Otto]], in his book ''The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, and What We can Do About It,'' that the winners of the war on science "will chart the future of power, democracy, and freedom itself."<ref name="Radford and Frazier (2017)">{{cite journal |author1=[[Benjamin Radford|Radford, Benjamin]] |author2=[[Kendrick Frazier|Frazier, Kendrick]] |title=The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, and What We Can Do About It |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=January 2017 |volume=41 |issue=1 |page=61}}</ref>