Most people agree that objectivity is a good thing in science, if you can get it. They might add that it is the good thing science offers. In their history (of) Objectivity, Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison argue that scientists did not always put it this way: the chief virtue of science was not always objectivity, but became so in the late nineteenth century. Although the word “objectivity” is still popular in conversations about science, in the last century it has evolved into virtues like “mechanical objectivity,” “structural objectivity,” and “trained judgment,” which are some of this book’s chapter titles.
The 502 pages of Objectivity have already started new trends in science studies, which should not surprise. Daston and Galison are leading historians of science, and their argument draws on work in diverse fields, from art history to nanotechnology, meeting philosophy, particle physics, and the history of botany along...
