Consistency from the perspective of an experimental systems approach to the sciences and their epistemic objects

Abstract

It is generally accepted that the development of the modern sciences is rooted in experiment. Yet for a long time, experimentation did not occupy a prominent role, neither in philosophy nor in history of science. With the 'practical turn' in studying the sciences and their history, this has begun to change. This paper is concerned with systems and cultures of experimentation and the consistencies that are generated within such systems and cultures. The first part of the paper exposes the forms of historical and structural coherence that characterize the experimental exploration of epistemic objects. In the second part, a particular experimental culture in the life sciences is briefly described as an example. A survey will be given of what it means and what it takes to analyze biological functions in the test tube.

What’s so critical about Critical Neuroscience? Rethinking experiment, enacting critique

“…We have no interest, here, in re-running philosophical or social-scientific debates about the structures of experiment (for which see e.g., Moghaddam and Harré, 1992; Shapin, 2010; Rheinberger, 2011). But we are interested in seeing how the formal elision of context (whether or not we agree with it; whether or not we think it’s ever actually enacted in practice) allows researchers to do and say particular kinds of things—and not all of them bad, or reactionary.…”

“…What makes experimental demonstration so potent, of course, is that the rules of the game require everyone to pretend that context doesn’t exist—that facts are somehow independent of the alarmingly human and social circumstances in which they have been assembled ( Latour, 1987 ). We have no interest, here, in re-running philosophical or social-scientific debates about the structures of experiment (for which see e.g., Moghaddam and Harré, 1992 ; Shapin, 2010 ; Rheinberger, 2011 ). But we are interested in seeing how the formal elision of context (whether or not we agree with it; whether or not we think it’s ever actually enacted in practice) allows researchers to do and say particular kinds of things—and not all of them bad, or reactionary.…”

Generative Critique in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: From Critique in and of the Neurosciences to Socio-Technical Integration Research as a Practice of Critique in R(R)I

“…Psychology and neurology, for instance, are entangled because psyche, body, and environment form a mutually constitutive system from which no element emerges as origin to be studied in isolation [103]. Indebted to this stance, Fitzgerald and Callard propose that neuroscientific experiments can render these crossings fertile because experiments allow for 'digression and transgressions of smaller research units below the level of disciplines, in which knowledge has not yet become labelled and classified, and in which new forms of knowledge can take shape' ( [104], p. 315). 5 Fitzgerald and Callard refer to such open-ended experiments across the sociocultural-neurosciencedivide as 'experimental entanglements' ( [46], p. 16).…”

A Web-Based Framework for Distributed Music System Research and Creation

“…Indeed, computer music is a field that spans across multiple disciplines-from scientific to artistic through social sciences and humanities-and thus gathers a great diversity of goals, skills, and methodologies (e.g., experimental studies, practices-based research). It appears that a common ground for the support of this diversity can be found in the concept of experimental systems-as systems composed of epistemic things and technical objects in constant evolution and reconfiguration-developed by Rheinberger [17,18] and pursued by Schwab in the context of artistic research [19]. We postulate that such epistemological ground can lead to the implementation of particular patterns [20] in order to support this diversity of research practices effectively.…”