De olika regimer som definierar objektivitet enl. Daston/Galison. s. 318

We have arrived at the third of the historical alternatives that have risen against the regime of depiction pursuing truth-to-nature (with general idealized objects, revealed by genial intervention). Truth-to-nature (types) is positioned against mechanical objectivity (individuals), but then mechanical objectivity is addressed by structural objectivity (relational invariants), and trained judgement (families of objects). This division does not mean that each replaced the former in sequence: on the contrary each new regimen of sight supplements rather than supplants the others. Structural objectivity intensified the search for a world without us — but it did so by stepping away from the empirical, mimetic capture of objects and towards relations and structures. And although both truth-to-nature and trained judgement opposed mechanical objectivity, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend: trained judgement differs from truth-to-nature precisely because the scientists invoking judgement to form their atlas images in the twentieth century had already taken on board or worked through mechanical objectivity. Sequence matters — history matters.