Both the philosophy of science and the philosophy of social science research methods stress the application of methodic procedures to ensure the objectivity of the findings of scientific research. In contrast, the examination of the practices of physical experimentation indicates that the work of an experiment involves the cultivation of idiosyncratic methods specific to that particular experiment. Rather than exhibiting the adequacy of findings through the use of a scientific method, experiments, as their achievement, reveal the adequacy of the methods used for their own analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bjelić, D.I. (1992a), 'Equipmental Availability of Galilean Physics' , University of Southern Maine, working paper.
2.
Bjelić, D.I. (1992b), 'The Praxiological Validity of Natural Scientific Practices as a Criterion for Identifying Their Unique Social-Object Character: The Case of the "Authentification" of Goethe's Morphological Theorem', Qualitative Sociology, 15:221-45.
3.
Bjelić, D.I. (1992c), 'Praxiomats: A Study into the Equipmental Availability of Practical Action', University of Southern Maine, working paper.
4.
Garfinkel, H. and H. Sacks (1970), 'On Formal Structures of Practical Actions', in J. C. McKinney and E. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts:338-66.
5.
Garfinkel, H., M. Lynch and E. Livingston (1981), 'The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar', Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11: 131-58.
6.
Garfinkel, H. (ed.) (1986), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
7.
Gunter, C.A. (1992), The Semantics of Programming Languages: Structures and Techniques, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
8.
Heidegger, M. (1962), Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. RobinsonNew York, Harper and Row.
9.
Holton, G. (1978), 'Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhart Dispute', in G. Holton, The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:25-83.
10.
Krieger, M. (1992), Doing Physics: How Physicists Take Hold of the World, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
11.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, University of Chicago.
12.
Livingston, E. (1986), The Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics , London, Routledge and Kegan Paul .
13.
Livingston, E. (1993), 'The Disciplinarity of Knowledge at the Mathematics-Physics Interface', in E. Messer-Davidow, D.R. Shumway, and D. J. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville , University Press of Virginia: 368-93.
14.
Livingston, E. (1995), An Anthropology of Reading, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
15.
Lynch, M. (1985), Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory, London , Routledge and Kegan Paul.
R. Resnick and D. Halliday (1966), Physics, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
18.
Sudnow, D. (1978), Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
19.
Suppe, F., (1977), 'The Search for Philosophic Understanding of Scientific Theories', in F. Suppe (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd edn, Urbana, University of Illinois Press .
20.
Tyler, F. (1959), A Laboratory Manual of Physics, London, Edward Arnold.
21.
White, H.E. (1940), Classical and Modern Physics, Princeton, D. Van Nostrand.
22.
White, H.E. (1959), Physics: An Exact Science, Princeton, D. Van Nostrand.
