In their book *Leviathan and the Air-Pump*, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer explore the relationship between experimental philosophy and social order in 17th-century England. They argue that Robert Boyle sought to create a "social space" for experimental science, demonstrating how civic and religious dissent could be managed peacefully. Shapin and Schaffer identify three "technologies" in Boyle's efforts: material (experimental apparatus), literary (descriptions of experiments), and social (rules of engagement in philosophical debate). These technologies were criticized by Thomas Hobbes, who saw them as leading to a loss of truth and certainty. The book highlights the tension between Boyle's emphasis on the matter of fact and Hobbes's dogmatism, and the broader implications for the relationship between organized religion and natural philosophy. The authors also discuss the challenges of replicating experimental findings and the unique status of Boyle's laboratories. While the book provides valuable insights, it lacks relevant parallels from European contexts, which could enhance its broader historical perspective.In their book *Leviathan and the Air-Pump*, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer explore the relationship between experimental philosophy and social order in 17th-century England. They argue that Robert Boyle sought to create a "social space" for experimental science, demonstrating how civic and religious dissent could be managed peacefully. Shapin and Schaffer identify three "technologies" in Boyle's efforts: material (experimental apparatus), literary (descriptions of experiments), and social (rules of engagement in philosophical debate). These technologies were criticized by Thomas Hobbes, who saw them as leading to a loss of truth and certainty. The book highlights the tension between Boyle's emphasis on the matter of fact and Hobbes's dogmatism, and the broader implications for the relationship between organized religion and natural philosophy. The authors also discuss the challenges of replicating experimental findings and the unique status of Boyle's laboratories. While the book provides valuable insights, it lacks relevant parallels from European contexts, which could enhance its broader historical perspective.