Wrong, what you are suggesting is the easy road, to treat reading Latour as a thought exercise about intentions and context. Fundamentally you are confusing som

Wrong, what you are suggesting is the easy road, to treat reading Latour as a thought exercise about intentions and context. Fundamentally you are confusing some useful techniques - contextualization and intellectual empathy - with the critical assessment of philosophical and scientific works. You are also assume Latour isn't invalid like string theorists or even worse like Deepak Chopra and other intellectual charlatans. Bad philosophy begets bad critical thinking skills, which then reproduces itself in readers who keep making bad arguments. So then it spreads and you get people who are well-read yet lack basic critical thinking ability, and even worse they cannot detect their own mistakes anymore. That's the reason why bad philosophy is especially harmful, because it works on a meta-level. Studying philosophy is not just a thought exercise rabbit hole, some literature (Latour) is actually just bad, and other philosophers have argued this!