In science studies, this "great debate" has for many now been put to rest.
For a very specific discussion of this, please see Bruno Latour's most
recent book "Pandora's Hope:  Essays on the Reality of Science Studies",
especially his opening chapter, where Latour recounts his exchange with an
animal ethologist who asked Latour whether he "believed in reality".

Latour like many of us in science studies have no issue with the reality of
things, humans, internet, images, drugs, space shuttles, moon rocks,
sub-atomic particles, etc.  All we ask is that one has to account for all
(or as many as one can) of these entities and propositions working together
at present and out of the past in producing the very real worlds of
action‹including the actions and findings of science along with the emerging
real faith in real things.  The complexes that allow such entities to have
the amazing power of "being" and therefore powerful effects are what is
important, not a debate about whether some very contingent thing called
"society" or an equally contingent thing called "nature" are the forces that
bring these things into being.  Society and nature are the effects of the
complex, not the powers moving it.  Rather it is humans and non-humans (eg.
images, books, lab tools, field notes, money, etc.) that do the acting, and
so are the salient powers at work.

Approaching things this way gets us all out of the double-bind of defending
the slippery notion "physical reality" from the onslaught of the equally
slippery notion of "social construction".

Perhaps, it would be better to have a discussion focussed on a question like

 "How should be reconfigure our practices for better and more effective
outcomes that move beyond the endless  polemics of the unreconcilable
dichotomy posed by the great debate?"

Brian Noble
Ph.D.
Anthropology
University of British Columbia



> 
> "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." wrote:
> 
>> I would propose starting with something that, to myself, at least,
>> seems obvious:
>> 
>> The only place anyone will ever find physical objects (i.e.,
>> the objects of laws of physics), and the only place anyone
>> will ever find laws of physics instantiated is in physics
>> experiments and the applications of laws of physics (e.g.,
>> in engineering calculations).  That is: There is no physical
>> world except as it appears in the experience (consciousness)
>> of individual human beings doing certain kinds of activities
>> which are ordinarily called physics, engineering, etc.
>> 
>> If anyone can show me a "counterexample" which is not a
>> *confirmation* of my thesis, I will be much amazed.
>> 
> 
> It would seem, er, obvious however, that Brad's belief in an external physical
> world is sufficient for him to send e-mails to a discussion list, in the
> physical
> existence of whose members he believes, using for the purpose various kinds of
> modern electronic gadgets, in whose existence he must also believe in spite of
> not doing physics or engineering.
> 
> Back to lurking, with best wishes to all,
> 
> Luca Sonnino