She’s interested in “the dichotomy between knowing subject and known object.” P. 53 and what happens when we don’t take it for granted.
“In short, contrary to rationalist assertions, there is no natural logic of proof, no single, stable, and timeless criterion by which agreement can be reached on the validity and relevance of a statement. Rather, the social is at the core of the interpretation and construction of facts, and the “rational” is inescapably a function of social and historical context.4” p. 54
“The contributions of Shapin and Schaffer, Callon and Latour, and Hacking converge around the same problematic: to see how the double reality of scientific knowledge is constructed such that it is the product of human practices at the same time that it appears to be entirely detached from them.” P. 55-6
Philosophically, the objectivity of science was in fact constructed in relation to a conception of the subject.13 To establish and maintain the specificity of this universal knowledge, it was necessary to construct a universal subject—a subject devoid of subjectivity, or rather, a subjectivity that has been excluded, contained in a method or in a consensus, or constructed by methods of objectification. P. 57
This is essentially an Actor Network Theory case study of a particular scientist.