Here you see what it meant to be a philosopher before the age of Science and Technology Studies:

Acording to him [Heidegger] one can speak of an experiment only if one has formulated a law or hypothesis. To do an experiment means: to formulate such a condition that a certain coherence can be verified in its necessary outcome and can be controled on account of calculations made beforehand.

In Dutch:

‘Volgens hem [Heidegger] is er pas sprake van een experiment, als men een wet of hypothese heeft geformuleerd. Een experiment doen betekent: een dergelijke voorwaarde formuleren, dat een bepaalde samenhang in zijn noodzakelijke afloop kan worden gecontroleerd en beheerst op grond van berekeningen vooraf.’

                           In Hans Achterhuis (red.) – De Maat v.d. techniek (1992), Netherlands. See also Heidegger – Holzwege.

Heidegger clearly only sees the intellectual side of the experiment as relevant for the relation of Modern man to nature and reality. For him the experiment is a totally controled situation, where nature is forced to show itself in a certain way, by man and his calculations.

But Heidegger can only see it like that, because he misses out on the practical side of the experiment. Experimentation means a lot of tinkering with measurement tools. Sometimes it takes years to tweak your devices in a way that they behave just a bit like you'd want them to. Ask any student of experimental physics. And any time you don't get the results your calculations predict, literally nobody can tell you which is wrong, your experiment or your calculations. One thing alone is clear in the the mess that surrounds you: nature is always right.

So, with what's in STS called the experimenters' regress the picture becomes a bit less one about control, nature is actually one of the actors in the experiment. The essence of experiment is that something new can be discovered, because there's always the chance of nature behaving in ways we don't expect. Heidegger is actually only stating the ideology of the experiment as existent at that time. He's talking more of the logic of justification than of the logic of discovery.

Analyzing this, it puts also some doubts on Heidegger's picture of Modernity as being all about ultimate control. This picture also seems to be more based on the ideology of Modernity than on it's practice. If so, this would be a nice footnote to Bruno Latour, We have never been Modern.