Scholarlink

<p>This paper aims to provide a minimalist meta-philosophical elucidation of ‘scientific pluralism’. I try to do so by pursuing its ‘lowest common denominator’, which I identify as <i>inclusiveness</i>. Although the term ‘scientific pluralism’ implies some unity among pluralists, no clear criteria exist for defining what constitutes a pluralist. As the primary characterisations are constructed negatively by opposing other viewpoints, it is essential to consider the positive aspect of the concept for a more precise and complete understanding. My primary objective here is to clarify and expand on the idea of ‘scientific pluralism’ by adopting a positive perspective. To accomplish this, I will adhere to the following steps: (1) I shall begin by introducing the topic and discussing the issue of the plurality of pluralisms; (2) I will subsequently highlight key examples of general scientific pluralisms, as they explicitly delineate themselves against “monism” and “relativism” (reconceptualised as ‘continuism’ and ‘discontinuism’); (3) Drawing upon the latter and what Kellert, Longino &amp; Waters (Kellert, <i>Scientific Pluralism</i> 2006) refer to as the “pluralist stance”, I will advocate for <i>inclusiveness</i> as the ‘lowest common denominator’ of current scientific pluralisms. This will provide us with a means to adopt a positive stance, characterised by the <i>acceptance of scientific multiplicity while including the opportune partial continuities and discontinuities</i>; finally, (4) I will present concluding remarks.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

What is it like to be a scientific pluralist? Looking for the lowest common denominator as a way towards a positive stance

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月5日

查看全文
  • Joseba Pascual-Alba

摘要

This paper aims to provide a minimalist meta-philosophical elucidation of ‘scientific pluralism’. I try to do so by pursuing its ‘lowest common denominator’, which I identify as inclusiveness. Although the term ‘scientific pluralism’ implies some unity among pluralists, no clear criteria exist for defining what constitutes a pluralist. As the primary characterisations are constructed negatively by opposing other viewpoints, it is essential to consider the positive aspect of the concept for a more precise and complete understanding. My primary objective here is to clarify and expand on the idea of ‘scientific pluralism’ by adopting a positive perspective. To accomplish this, I will adhere to the following steps: (1) I shall begin by introducing the topic and discussing the issue of the plurality of pluralisms; (2) I will subsequently highlight key examples of general scientific pluralisms, as they explicitly delineate themselves against “monism” and “relativism” (reconceptualised as ‘continuism’ and ‘discontinuism’); (3) Drawing upon the latter and what Kellert, Longino & Waters (Kellert, Scientific Pluralism 2006) refer to as the “pluralist stance”, I will advocate for inclusiveness as the ‘lowest common denominator’ of current scientific pluralisms. This will provide us with a means to adopt a positive stance, characterised by the acceptance of scientific multiplicity while including the opportune partial continuities and discontinuities; finally, (4) I will present concluding remarks.