I’m on the way out the door but I wanted to draw attention to Fabio’s very strange post about the relationship between OOO and the sciences. If I say that this post is very strange, then this is because Fabio charges OOO with a number of claims that even a cursory reading of OOO writings would disabuse one of making (and here, above all, I refer to Harman’s Prince of Networks, but also my own engagement with Roy Bhaskar). Fabio seems to suggest that OOO theorists ignore the lab and scientific laboratory work, when in fact a celebration of the lab follows directly from object-oriented ontology because, well, obviously we pay special attention to the role played by nonhuman actors (you know, lab equipment!). I’ve actually written pretty extensively on this in the context of Latour’s concept of circulating reference. Similarly, Fabio seems to accuse OOO of illicitly unifying the sciences under a single identity, when all of us, to my knowledge, side with Latour’s critique of Science (with a capital “S”) in the name of sciences. Our hostility towards this sort of illicit unification is part of what contributes to our critique of Ladyman/Ross, as well as Badiou and Meilloussoux’s claims that the essence of science is mathematization. At any rate, I’m left scratching my head wondering who, precisely, Fabio is addressing. I could go on but at the moment I gotta head out the door. For a more detailed discussion, with which I’m in total agreement (especially with respect to his criticism of the idea that philosophy should leave investigation objects exclusively to the domain of the sciences), see Graham’s post responding to Fabio.