Spontaneous Generations 4 (1):61-70 (2010)
In important respects measurement practices underlay both the Second Scientific Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution. Such practices, using increasingly accurate and precise instruments, both turned laboratories into factories for the production of exact measurement and also made factories the sites of laboratory-type and laboratory-quality measurement. Those who had learnt the protocols of precise, instrumentational measurement in university science and engineering classrooms, used those instruments and their skills to monitor and control industrial production, exchange technical data within and among firms and formulate and implement technical standardization in industry. That these instruments measured not natural phenomena but technological ones made them no different in kind from what are more conventionally regarded as scientific instruments. Some indeed were simply instruments developed for scientific investigation and adapted for industrial use while others were created specifically for particular industrial applications. But more than the purely technical was going on in the use of those instruments. In addition to their function of producing knowledge they were also, in industrial production, instruments of hegemony – hegemony which, as Gramsci reminds us, begins in the factory. Among the lesser known of these devices is the freeness tester, used in production to control the manufacture of pulp and also in industrial research laboratories for the investigation of the pulping process. The Canadian Standard Freeness Tester (CSFT), developed at a Canadian government research facility on the campus of McGill University in the 1920s, quickly became a standard instrument in the pulp mills of North America and gained wide acceptance in other countries; it remains in use to this day. An understanding of its creation and function can provide a useful case study of the general observations discussed above
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Residuation, Structural Rules and Context Freeness.Gerhard Jäger - 2004 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (1):47-59.
Evidence Against the Context-Freeness of Natural Language.Stuart M. Shieber - 1985 - Linguistics and Philosophy 8 (3):333 - 343.
Vacuous Relatives and the (Non-) Context-Freeness of English.Francis Jeffry Pelletier - 1988 - Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (3):255 - 260.
Fair Division of Indivisible Items.Steven J. Brams, Paul H. Edelman & Peter C. Fishburn - 2003 - Theory and Decision 55 (2):147-180.
Freeness in Classes Without Equality.Raimon Elgueta - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):1159-1194.
Λ-Terms, Logic, Determiners and Quantifiers.Fairouz Kamareddine - 1992 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1 (1):79-103.
Free Set Algebras Satisfying Systems of Equations.G. Aldo Antonelli - 1999 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (4):1656-1674.
Argument or No Argument?Geoffrey K. Pullum & Kyle Rawlins - 2007 - Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2):277 - 287.
Vaught's Conjecture for Modules Over a Serial Ring.Vera Puninskaya - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (1):155-163.
Combinatorics with Definable Sets: Euler Characteristics and Grothendieck Rings.Jan Krajíček & Thomas Scanlon - 2000 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6 (3):311-330.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads4 ( #636,878 of 2,158,464 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #354,692 of 2,158,464 )
How can I increase my downloads?