Abstract: In recent years the proliferation ‘experimental forms of participation’have attracted wide interest of researches in Science and Technology studies (STS). At present, the ideas and settings of experiments represent broad implementation for more integrated system of science-society interaction which endeavor to promote community engagement governance in public affairs and daily lives, whether it is in the form of sociological study which is derived from social experiment in psychological studies, in the business-led outlets, such as ‘User experience Research’, or in the government-encouraged experiments in behavioral change, such as new artificial inteligence social application in daily lives. In retrospect, experimentation as a key theme occupied the central place in the emergence of STS as an original field of research and scholarship. Both these studies on history of experiments and modern experimental cultures show the special affordance for production of scientific knowledge as well as for new kinds of audiences, such as scholars in other disciplines, policy makers and publics in the process of experimental demonstration. Yet as experiments are explicitly designed and defined as a privileged format of involvements in social activity，a question emerges subsequently：can the proliferation of experimental formats also manifest special affordances for public participation in science, or does it enable the enrolment of social actors by material and ethical means. In last few years, Noortje Marres and Javier Lezaun started to describe experiments as a method to pursue a comprehensive approach with demonstrating and democratizing both knowledge production and political participation in practice. Their understandings of experiments correspond to the interest in matters of ‘ontology’ in STS, such as ‘ontology in medical practice’ which is developed from Actor-Network Theory (ANT) by Annemarie Mol and John Law. However, besides the affordances of experiments for the accumulation of social-material relations in translation process which is associated with ANT, the renewed understandings of experiments also refer to a distinctive mode of engagement through material actions in practice. The new studies of experiments are fulfilled by some new methodological instruments like ‘living experiments’ and ’material participation’ to enact and reconfigure the form of knowledge production as well as of political engagement. Alongside confronting the intrinsic dilemma of dealing with democratic process, representation, consensus in public engagement with science (PES) models, it offers the crucial methodological and analytical sensitivities that underpin the STS`s ‘turn to ontology’ approach by proposing an experimental conception of ontology. To what extent can we speak of ‘turn to ontology’ in STS, work in ontological politics (Mol and Law), and especially in ANT, has conclusively proposed the question of ‘what the world is made up of’ must be studied empirically. It compels the shift in STS from epistemology to ontology by developing an empirical ontology. By contrast, experimental ontology argues that transformations in the composition of the world should be studied in the sense of efforts to purposefully facilitate moral and political capacities within material objects and settings. Although experimental ontology can productively advance understanding of key dynamics in how public action in daily living unfolds, both its similarity to and difference from empirical ontology render its` ontology issues indistinguishablly. This paper focuses on the perplexing description in experimental conception of ontology. We attempt to explore some of the sometimes different, sometimes overlapping ways in which Gilles Deleuze and Bruno Latour access to ethical issues separately and argue that their different understandings of the ontological basis to ethical issues could bring out a crucial dstinction between experimental and empirical ontology. By featuring ‘becoming throughout encounters’ as an ontological foundation, experimental ontology makes possible its metaphysical stance. In last few years, Noortje Marres and Javier Lezaun started to describe experiments as a method to pursue a comprehensive approach with demonstrating and democratizing both knowledge production and political participation in practice. Their understandings of experiments correspond to the interest in matters of ‘ontology’ in STS, such as ‘ontology in medical practice’ which is developed from Actor-Network Theory (ANT) by Annemarie Mol and John Law. However, besides the affordances of experiments for the accumulation of social-material relations in translation process which is associated with ANT, the renewed understandings of experiments also refer to a distinctive mode of engagement through material actions in practice. The new studies of experiments are fulfilled by some new methodological instruments like ‘living experiments’ and ’material participation’ to enact and reconfigure the form of knowledge production as well as of political engagement. Alongside confronting the intrinsic dilemma of dealing with democratic process, representation, consensus in public engagement with science (PES) models, it offers the crucial methodological and analytical sensitivities that underpin the STS`s ‘turn to ontology’ approach by proposing an experimental conception of ontology. To what extent can we speak of ‘turn to ontology’ in STS, work in ontological politics (Mol and Law), and especially in ANT, has conclusively proposed the question of ‘what the world is made up of’ must be studied empirically. It compels the shift in STS from epistemology to ontology by developing an empirical ontology. By contrast, experimental ontology argues that transformations in the composition of the world should be studied in the sense of efforts to purposefully facilitate moral and political capacities within material objects and settings. Although experimental ontology can productively advance understanding of key dynamics in how public action in daily living unfolds, both its similarity to and difference from empirical ontology render its` ontology issues indistinguishablly. This paper focuses on the perplexing description in experimental conception of ontology. We attempt to explore some of the sometimes different, sometimes overlapping ways in which Gilles Deleuze and Bruno Latour access to ethical issues separately and argue that their different understandings of the ontological basis to ethical issues could bring out a crucial dstinction between experimental and empirical ontology. By featuring ‘becoming throughout encounters’ as an ontological foundation, experimental ontology makes possible its metaphysical establishment.

摘要： 近年来，参与实验作为STS中新出现的研究方法受到了广泛的关注。在方法层面，参与实验吸收了行动者-网络理论(ANT)等研究成果对实践的关注，挑战了现有公众参与科学模式囿于议程、代表权、共识等概念的困境，将公众参与科学引向对日常活动中物质实践的定制和分析。在理论层面，参与实验区分了ANT、存在论政治学等“经验化”存在论方案，试图在STS中建立一种“实验化”的存在论方案。“实验化”研究突破了“经验化”研究的方法论框架，但其存在论地位仍显模糊。本研究讨论了德勒兹与拉图尔对伦理问题的不同思考，指出了两者在伦理学上不同的存在论立场可以成为解释“实验化”和“经验化”之间对立根源的思想线索。在此思想线索的基础上，诉诸“遭遇中的生成”将为“实验化”存在论方案提供一条区分于“经验化”的立足之途，从而为在“公众参与科学”中促发更多具备可行性的实践方案提供一种可能的理论前提。