布鲁尔认为,拉图尔的回应没有直接面对他提出的两项批评,却把问题与哲学史纠缠在一起。布鲁尔指出,他们争论的焦点是在建构知识的过程中物质世界所起的作用,而布鲁尔曲解了爱丁堡学派的观点,对不确定性论点做了错误的解释。布鲁尔认为,自然界是丰富的,科学家与自然界的接合也是复杂的,这是不确定性的核心内容,只有正确理解它,才能正确理解强纲领。他最后断言,布鲁尔放弃经过其扩展的对称原则,不是进步,而是后退。 Brewer believes Latour’s response did not directly confront the two criticisms he put forward, but entangled the issue with the history of philosophy. Brewer pointed out that the focus of their controversy is the role played by the material world in the process of constructing knowledge, while Brewer misinterprets the views of the Edinburgh School and misinterprets the uncertainty argument. Brewer believes that nature is rich, and that the bond between scientists and nature is also complicated. This is the core of uncertainty. Only when we understand it properly can we understand the strong program correctly. He concluded by asserting that Brewer’s abandonment of the principle of symmetry after its expansion was not progress but retreat.