Publikation: The Care of the Self and Blind Variation: An Ethnography of the Empirical in Two Sciences
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
In this paper, I want to present two stories about kinds of empiricism; about the ways a science, experimental high energy physics, understands and enacts empirical research, and about how this understanding differs from that of another science, molecular biology. An ethnography of the empirical in different sciences has never been written. One reason for this surely lies in the fact that the meaning of empirical procedure is thought to be common to all experimental sciences, describable in terms of a few injunctions, and spelled out in any textbook introduction to the respective field. By studying scientific laboratories, the new sociology of science overcame the textbook image of science11, but it did not break away from the assumption that all sciences conform to similar procedures, exemplify similar attitudes to the empirical world, and form part of one culture. It also focussed on the role played by contingencies, interpretation and negotiation in the creation of scientific knowledge. What got left out of the picture was the construction of the empirical machineries involved in this creation.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
KNORR, Karin, 1995. The Care of the Self and Blind Variation: An Ethnography of the Empirical in Two Sciences. In: GALISON, P., ed., D. STUMP, ed.. The Disunity of Science Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Univ. Pr., 1995BibTex
@incollection{Knorr1995Blind-11467, year={1995}, title={The Care of the Self and Blind Variation: An Ethnography of the Empirical in Two Sciences}, publisher={Univ. Pr.}, address={Stanford}, booktitle={The Disunity of Science Boundaries, Contexts, and Power}, editor={Galison, P. and Stump, D.}, author={Knorr, Karin} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/11467"> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-03-25T09:34:12Z</dcterms:available> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/11467/1/Knorr_1995_CareOfSelf.pdf"/> <dcterms:title>The Care of the Self and Blind Variation: An Ethnography of the Empirical in Two Sciences</dcterms:title> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/11467"/> <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="deu">In this paper, I want to present two stories about kinds of empiricism; about the ways a science, experimental high energy physics, understands and enacts empirical research, and about how this understanding differs from that of another science, molecular biology. An ethnography of the empirical in different sciences has never been written. One reason for this surely lies in the fact that the meaning of empirical procedure is thought to be common to all experimental sciences, describable in terms of a few injunctions, and spelled out in any textbook introduction to the respective field. By studying scientific laboratories, the new sociology of science overcame the textbook image of science11, but it did not break away from the assumption that all sciences conform to similar procedures, exemplify similar attitudes to the empirical world, and form part of one culture. It also focussed on the role played by contingencies, interpretation and negotiation in the creation of scientific knowledge. What got left out of the picture was the construction of the empirical machineries involved in this creation.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:contributor>Knorr, Karin</dc:contributor> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2011-03-25T09:34:12Z</dc:date> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34"/> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/34"/> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/11467/1/Knorr_1995_CareOfSelf.pdf"/> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>First publ. in: The Disunity of Science. Boundaries, Contexts, and Power / P. Galison and D. Stump (eds.). Stanford: Univ. Pr., 1995</dcterms:bibliographicCitation> <dcterms:issued>1995</dcterms:issued> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dc:creator>Knorr, Karin</dc:creator> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>