Not only the western world, but the human race as a whole, has continued to be revolutionary from the start of time. By any definition of time, it is hard to argue that there have not been huge changes that have altered future events. I believe that while Bruno Latour had some very interesting ideas, he was looking at revolutions like an anthropologist and not like a general member of society. I find it hard to argue that scientific and intellectual revolutions did not occur, especially when taking a history course. Seeing how much the human race has changed from year to year, decade to decade and century to century seems to me to be evidence of multiple revolutions. Humans tend to become stuck in their ways and believe that what they are doing is the correct thing, and it almost always takes a revolution to change this.
Latour mentions dualism many times throughout his book, the dualism of matter and mind, nature and society and purification and mediation just to name a few. One of the most concerning points that Latour made was that nature and society are essentially different things and cannot work together to support theory (Asymmetrical theory and 1st principal of symmetry). The idea that theories can be proved false only by social explanation does not seem feasible to me. In the present day, it seems that theories can be proved by nature and by means other than a social explanation.
The Asymmetrical theory states that nature explains truth and that society explains falsehoods in theories. This seems wrong to me, if nature can prove and explain a truth to society, there should be a social explanation for the truth, instead of a social explanation of a falsehood. The theory the 1st principal of symmetry starts getting towards my idea that nature or society should be able to explain truth or false theories in the world, but states that society explains truths and falsities and that nature doesn’t explain anything. I think that if one side is explaining things, it should be nature. Nature is a sure thing, we are not doing anything to change what is happening naturally. Society can change the way that they feel about one theory depending on the time period and other social effects.
Nature and society should not be compared to plate tectonics, as Latour does, but instead should be compared to something that moves together. Nature should be explained by society and theory should be supported or falsified by both at once instead of rejected by one or the other while being deemed true by the other. If we consider this, we can consider ourselves revolutionary. We can say that through revolution we have merged nature and society and have been able to make large steps forward in scientific, intellectual and political revolutions. Humans are almost revolutionary by definition, they are constantly changing in ways that better their culture and the way they live, they are not happy to be a sedentary species. For this reason, we cannot agree with Latour, and have to begin to accept that humans are revolutionary.