[Errancer]

But Latour is precisely doing what you demand in the first paragraph. The fact that he is claimed to be anti-scientific is extremely ironic. His counter-intuitive conclusions come from the attempt of defending science because the traditional accounts failed. You use "fact", "reality", "science", "beliefs", "knowledge" without any degree of irony but do you know how hard it is to defend them on the philosophical grounds? Most people are naive positivists and even positivists from Vienna circle quickly gave up on such positions because they were so hard to maintain. Latour was not a stupid opportunist and you can find this in his biography. If you think he was wrong then first make sure you understand what he was even trying to argue for. Without this understanding how can you square your claims about knowledge and your actions? Do you believe that your opinions have no metaphysical assumptions whatsoever? Or do you think that your opinions are true so you can a priori deny any contrary opinions as false?