Experiments and their relation to rationality have been given attention by the protonates of the first approach, this point being mentioned by Knorr Cetina fairly early in the paper. However, this attention she points out suffers from the same dislocation of context and rationality. The logic of the experiments, the perimeters, and measures to ensure the correct outcome, all place the notion of rational conduct on accuracy. That is to carry out the experiment in all its validity was the burden of analysis within the rationality as resource approach. The experiment's connection to the thinking of the field, procedures of the lab, and the examined objects, all in question were not correlated with the same notion of rational choice and conduct as within the experiment itself. Knorr Cetina's paper rectified this disconnect and in that same order. By choosing two differing sciences Korr Cetina tease out differences in how each science 'sees' or makes sense of validity, the situational laboratory arrangements made for deploying said experiments, and how outcome knowledge is constituted and communicated within the field and amidst the researchers. Through the variations between the fields, Knorr Cetina shows just how much the context is filled with rational choices and actions that have direct barring on the nature of the outcome and the knowledge it communicates. Moreover, the variations reveal the uniqueness of reasoning particular to the procedures of the field. Knorr Cetina ends the paper by expounding upon the implications of these two outcomes on the larger fields philosophy and sociology of science.
