{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024163568773234202, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.493975903614458, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On the Alleged Distinction Between Discourse and Praxis

Recent criticisms of work in the social study of science depend upon a misconception of the strategic theoretical significance of the notion of `discourse'. This arises because the earlier continental sense of `discourse' has been `anglicized'. The constitutive epistemology of French post-structuralism, which presumes a congruence between discourse and praxis, has been neglected in favour of the realist concerns of empirical research in the Anglo-Saxon social study of science.