Abstract
In his paper 'City as Truth-Spot, Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies', Thomas Gyerin contends that each locus for practicing science is linked 'with distinctive epistemic virtues'. In other words, when the laboratory is standardized-prone, removing doubts that experimental results might be caused by an uncontrolled environment, the field-site embodies the idea of unadulterated reality, and insist on the necessity of 'being there' to acknowledge a discovery that cannot be reproduced elsewhere. Each of these loci has its assets and drawbacks. In this regard, the city can be depicted both as a laboratory and field-site, being as much a controlling environment suitable for a generalization to 'anywhere' as a pre-existing reality, a particular place. Such a reflection is especially relevant when talking about New-York, London and Paris in the 19th century. Hence, beyond their differences, which features style of thought, institutions, scientific culture, geographical location did London, Paris and New York share in order to become stages or even objects for technical innovations. Were these innovations to be considered the criterion of a new hierarchy?
