Abstract
The terms “perspectivism” and “perspectivalism” have been the focus of an intense philosophical discussion with important repercussions for the debate about the role of mechanisms in scientific explanations. However, leading exponents of the new mechanistic philosophy have conceded more than was necessary to the radically subjectivistic perspectivalism, and fell into the opposite error, by retaining not negligible residues of objectivistic views about mechanisms. In order to remove this vacillation between the subjective-cultural and the objective-natural sides of mechanisms, we shall raise the question about theory-ladenness over again and interpret it in its connection with the technical–experimental nature of scientific knowledge, as affirming the perspectival character of scientific knowledge: It is because of the character at once theory-laden and practice-laden, i.e. technique-laden, of our putting questions to nature that empirical reality must be investigated from particular perspectives: nature can be known scientifically only from a potentially infinite (not determinable a priori) number of perspectives or theoretical points of view, concretely exemplified by mechanisms or experimental ‘machines’ that allow specific access to specific aspects of sensible reality.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Giere (2006, p. 80) draws a somewhat similar distinction, based on the opposition between compatibility versus incompatibility of different perspectives. For a distinction that is much more similar to that drawn here, see for example Babich (1994, 49ff) (who, discussing Nietzsche and relativism, distinguishes Nietzsche’s perspectivalism from extreme relativism). This general distinction, according to Hartwig (2007, p. 240), would correspond to the terminological distinction between "perspectivalism" and "perspectivism", but it does not seem to me that this use is so common as to be advisable. Therefore, so far as my own observations on this point are concerned, the two terms will be used here as essentially synonymous.
As far as the philosophy of science is concerned, it was mainly due to Giere (2006) that the problem of perspectival knowledge has become a topic of serious interest in recent philosophy of science, and the same is true of the good fortune of the terms “perspectivism” and “perspectival realism”. Among the many other authors who explicitly hold perspectiv(al)ist views in the philosophy of science, at least Hans Lenk (e.g. 1978), Huw Price (e.g. 2007) and Michela Massimi (e.g. 2016) still deserve to be mentioned. To my knowledge, however, Evandro Agazzi was the first (with a few exceptions, among which Weber (1904) is perhaps the only one that must not be omitted) to formulate the central idea of perspectivalism in a clear and systematic way and to fully appreciate the epistemological and methodological importance of it for the philosophy of empirical sciences (cf. Agazzi 1969, but see also 2014). For developments of Agazzi's point of view, see Dilworth (1981) and Buzzoni (1995).
Moreover, to the extent that Craver assumes a notion of mechanism that is atomistic, he is subjected to the severe criticism raised by Eronen (2013, 2015), who argued that Craver's criterion for being at the same level of a mechanism leads to a contradiction or, more precisely, to a dilemma. In my opinion, Eronen's argument is valid, but the dilemma depends upon an atomistic interpretation of mechanisms that most of the exponents of the new mechanistic philosophy, and especially Craver (see for example 2001: 67, and 2013), would not (at least explicitly) accept. For a detailed examination of Eronen’s objection, cf. Bertolaso and Buzzoni (2017, §3).
For an application to the problem of theoretical entities (including microphysics), see Buzzoni (1997).
From this point of view, so far as empirical reality is concerned, Smith’s distinction between “bona fide” slicings (which “reflect boundaries existing in nature”) and the “fiat” slicings (which “reflect boundaries which we ourselves have introduced into reality through our more or less arbitrary demarcations”) must be rejected (cf. Smith 2004). The expression “more or less arbitrary” hints at the difficulty of this distinction, which neglects the technical-experimental aspect of human knowledge concerning empirical reality.
This point is intimately connected with the role of idealisation in science. For more details, see Buzzoni (2008).
References
Agazzi E (1969) Temi e problemi di filosofia della fisica. Manfredi, Milan
Agazzi E (2014) Scientific objectivity and its contexts. Springer, Berlin
Babich B (1994) Nietzsche’s philosophy of science. State University of New York Press, Albany
Bechtel W (2006) Discovering cell mechanisms: the creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bechtel W (2008) Mental mechanisms. Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Routledge, London
Bertolaso M, Buzzoni M (2017) Causality and levels of explanation in biology. In: Paolini Paoletti M, Orilia F (eds) Philosophical and scientific perspectives on downward causation. Routledge, London (in press)
Bitbol M (1991) Perspectival realism and quantum mechanics. In: Lahti P, Mittelstaedt P (eds) Symposium on the foundations of modern physics 1990. World Scientific, Singapore
Buzzoni M (1995) Scienza e tecnica. Teoria ed esperienza nelle scienze della natura. Studium, Rom
Buzzoni M (1997) Erkenntnistheoretische und ontologische Probleme der theoretischen Begriffe. J Gen Philos Sci 28:19–53
Buzzoni M (2008) Thought experiment in the natural sciences. Königshausen + Neumann, Würzburg
Buzzoni M (2014) The agency theory of causality, anthropomorphism, and simultaneity. Int Stud Philos Sci 28:375–395
Craver CF (2001) Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philos Sci 68:53–74
Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain. Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York
Craver CF (2013) Functions and mechanisms: a perspectivalist view. In: Huneman P (ed) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–158
Darden L (2008) Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philos Sci 75:958–969
Dewey J (1938) Logic. The theory of inquiry. Holt, New York
Dilworth C (1981) Scientific progress: a study concerning the nature of the relation between successive scientific theories. Reidel, Dordrecht (4th ed. 2008)
Eronen MI (2013) No levels, no problems: downward causation in neuroscience. Philos Sci 80:1042–1052
Eronen MI (2015) Levels of organization: a deflationary account. Biol Philos 30:39–58
Frame JM (1987) The doctrine of the knowledge of god. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg
Franklin A (1989) The epistemology of experiment. In: Gooding D, Pinch TJ, Schaffer S (eds) The uses of experiment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 437–460
Giere RN (1988) Explaining science. A cognitive approach. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Giere RN (2006) Scientific perspectivism. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Glennan S (2002) Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philos Sci 69:S342–S353
Gooding D (1990) Experiment and the making of meaning. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14:575–599
Harding S (1986) The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Hare C (2010) Realism about tense and perspective. Philos Compass 5(9):760–769
Hartsock N (1983) The feminist standpoint: developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In: Harding S, Hintikka MB (eds) Discovering reality. Reidel, Dordrecht
Hartwig M (2007) Dictionary of critical realism. Routledge, London
Ismael J (2016) How do causes depend on us? The many faces of perspectivalism. Synthese 193:245–267
Janich P (1996) Was ist Wahrheit? Eine philosophische Einführung. Beck, Munich (2nd ed. 2000; quotations are from this edition)
Kauffman SA (1971) Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for them. In: Buck RC, Cohen RS (eds) PSA 1970, pp 257–272
Lenk H (1978) Handlung als Interpretationskonstrukt. In: Lenk H (ed) Handlungstheorien interdisziplinär. Vol. 2.1: Handlungerklärungen und philosophische Handlungsinterpretation. Fink, Munich, pp 279–350
Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25
Massimi M (2016) Four kinds of perspectival truth. Philos Phenomenol Res. doi:10.1111/phpr.12300
Nickles T (1988) Reconstructing science: discovery and experiment. In: Batens D, van Bendegem JP (eds) Theory and experiment: recent insights and new perspectives on their relation. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 299–333
Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (quotations are from the 1962 edition)
Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London (2nd ed. 1968; quotations are from this edition)
Popper KR (1963) Conjectures & refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Poythress VS (1987) Symphonic theology: the validity of multiple perspectives in theology. Zondervan, Grand Rapids
Price H (2007) Causal perspectivalism. In: Price H, Corry R (eds) Causation, physics, and the constitution of reality: Russell’s Republic revisited. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 250–292
Putnam H (1994) Michael Redhead on quantum logic. In: Clark P, Hale R (eds) Reading Putnam. Blackwell, Oxford
Rueger A (2005) Perspectival models and theory unification. Br J Philos Sci 56:579–594
Skipper RA Jr, Millstein RL (2005) Thinking about evolutionary mechanisms: natural selection. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36:327–347
Smith B (2004) Carving up reality. In: Gorman M, Sanford J (eds) Categories: historical and systematic essays. Catholic University of America Press, Washington, pp 225–237
Toulmin S (1975) Concepts of function and mechanism in medicine and medical science. In: Tristram Engelhardt H Jr, Spiker SF (eds) Evaluation and explanation in the biomedical sciences. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 51–66
Weber M (1904) Die “Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19:22–87, repr. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr, Tübingen 1922, pp 146–214 (5th ed. 1982; quotations are from this edition)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buzzoni, M. Mechanisms, Experiments, and Theory-Ladenness: A Realist–Perspectivalist View. Axiomathes 26, 411–427 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9301-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9301-7