paragraph1 is "First guarantee: once there, and no matter how it came about, discussion about X should stop for good. This is an essential assurance against endless controversies, heckling, superfluous doubts, excessive deconstruction. Such is one of the two meanings of the word \"facts\": once in place, reality should not be allowed to be disputed and should be used as the indisputable premise of other reasonings. This is the only way to assure a base of solid and stable facts to rest upon.if only to occasionally thumb a table in good spirit. If this leverage is taken out, it seems that discussion is no longer possible (Hacking 1999, 84). If a party named \"constructivists\" appears to be jeopardizing this essential guarantee, then \"that means war,\" and it is no surprise that the other factions will try and exclude it from any \"parliament\" (Stengers 1998). What went so wrong in the earlier debates around \"social construction\" was that such a guarantee went ignored.or rather was confused with the equally important one just to follow.";

paragraph2 is "Second guarantee: in spite of the indisputability insured by the former, a revision process should be maintained, an appeal of some sort, to make sure that new claimants.which the former established order had not been able to take into account.will be able to have their voices heard. And \"voice,\" of course, is not limited to humans. This is exactly what the crowd reviewed by Hacking requires when they attack the \"naturalized,\" indisputable, taken-for-granted stage 0. Only what has been made can be unmade or remade; such is an indispensable source of energy. If all the means of revision are taken away, if we are simply faced with the indisputable matters of facts which have always been the way they are, an essential guarantee has been jeopardized and that, too, \"means war.\" New candidates to existence will be forbidden access to the common world. If a party called \"naturalists\" appears to forestall all discussions, all revisions, because they use the state of nature to shortcut due process in the name of \"law and order,\" then it is not surprising that the other factions will try to exclude it from the parliament. The delicate checks and balances of political epistemology require both guarantees, there is no due process without them. But the discussion does not stop at these two.";

paragraph3 is "Third guarantee: the common world is to be composed progressively; it is not already there once and for all. This guarantee is totally muddled when transformed into an argument for contingency against necessity.and on that account Hacking falls into the trap (his \"sticking point\" #1). To prove that matters of facts have been \"constructed,\" it is argued, one has simply to show that they are contingent, that they could have been otherwise, that they are not necessary.10 To disprove the constructivist account, it is counterargued, one has simply to show that there are no two ways for X to exist, only one. But such a debate is a profound misreading of the real argument in science studies, especially in the history of science. The point is not about demonstrating the existence of \"alternative\" physics, chemistry, or genetics, but about the impossibility of absorbing the world.in the singular.in \"one single chunk.\" The unified world is a thing of the future, not of the past. In the meantime we are all in what James calls the \"pluriverse,\" and those.scientists, philosophers, activists, commoners of all sorts.who strive to make it one are taking risks and they could fail. Danger, contingency, uncertainty, does not qualify the result.which might well be Necessity herself.but the process through which \"the\" world becomes progressively shared as one same world. The opposition is not between contingency and necessity, but between those who want to order the world once and for all on the cheap pretext that it is already \"one,\" so that they can subtract everything else from it, and those who are ready to pay the price of its progressive composition into one because they cannot subtract anything.";

paragraph4 is "Fourth guarantee: humans and non-humans are engaged in a history that should render their separation impossible. Again, this feature of constructivism is deeply misread when seen as a debate between realism and nominalism (Hacking 1999, 80). Words and worlds do not represent two statues facing one another and marking the respective territories of two kingdoms.only to one of them will loyalty be sworn. Rather, words and worlds mark possible and not very interesting extremities, end points of a complex set of practices, mediations, instruments, forms of life, engagements, involvements through which new associations are generated. To imagine that a choice has to be made between statements and matters of fact would be like pitting the two banks of a riverbed against one another while ignoring the huge and powerful river that streams in between. If philosophy has only registered the choice between realism and nominalism, this has nothing to do with the way we all deal with the truth content of matters of facts, but with a precise political order that has requested a strict separation between humans and non-humans (de Libera 1996). As soon as the political assembly is modified.and this is precisely what is registered by science studies.the guarantee is not to finally obtain a clear separation between words and worlds, nature and culture, facts and representation, but just the opposite: to ensure that there is no such separation.";

paragraph5 is "Fifth guarantee: institutions assuring due process should be able to specify the quality of the \"good common world\" they have to monitor. As I have shown above, what is so crucial in the accounting proper to constructivism is to be able to differentiate good and bad construction.and not to be stuck forever in the absurd choice: is it or is it not constructed? Although the philosophical tradition has separated the moral question of the \"good life\" from the epistemological one of the \"common world\", it is just a question of which common world is best and how it can be shared as one which occupies the stage when the subtle discourse of practice is foregrounded. This is where the composition of the common world takes its meaning and what has been expressed from the Greeks onward by the word cosmos.by opposition to kakosmos. The quest of the common world cannot even begin to be raised when an opposition is drawn between an \"unconstructed\" world already there, already unified, devoid of values, on the one hand, and a \"constructed\" motley of conflicting social or subjective value claims on the other. Simply to \"be there\" is not enough for matters of fact to be absorbed, associated, digested, rendered compatible with other conflicting claims: they have to be composed, they have to become instead states of affairs.";

allparas is [paragraph1, paragraph2, paragraph3, paragraph4, paragraph5];