, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 437–441 | Cite as

A paean to contingency

Léna Soler, Emiliano Trizio, and Andrew Pickering (eds.): Science as it could have been: discussing the contingency/inevitability problem. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press, 2015, x+462pp, $61.95 HB
  • Joseph D. MartinEmail author
Essay Review

The contingency/inevitability (C/I) problem consists in questions about the extent to which science is contingent or inevitable, what parts of it are contingent or inevitable, and whether alternative scientific trajectories might be just as successful as the one we have. It is relatively new as a well-delineated object of philosophical inquiry, dating to Ian Hacking’s observation in The Social Construction of What? (1999) that the social construction movement raises questions about contingency and inevitability that can be understood as distinct from, and perhaps more promising than, longstanding debates about scientific realism and anti-realism. In the years since Hacking defined the key terms of the C/I problem, a group of scholars has coalesced around the questions he posed. Those questions motivated, for example, a 2009 workshop at the Fondation Des Treilles in Tourtour, France, and this book synthesizes its results.

A volume seeking to define an issue of such recent vintage faces...


Scientific Practice Contingent Factor Ontological Commitment Contingency Claim Preconceive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bowler, Peter. 2013. Darwin deleted: Imagining a world without Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang, Hasok. 2012. Is water H 2 0? Evidence, realism, and pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Hacking, Ian. 1999. The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kinzel, Katherina. 2015. State of the field: Are the results of science contingent or inevitable? Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A 52: 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Martin, Joseph D. 2013. Is the contingentist/inevitabilist debate a matter of degrees? Philosophy of Science 80: 919–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Raddick, Gregory. 2008. Introduction: Why what if? Isis 99: 547–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lyman Briggs CollegeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations