Skip to main content
Log in

Mechanisms, Experiments, and Theory-Ladenness: A Realist–Perspectivalist View

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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).

  4. Here I am drawing on the “thesis of the perspectival character of scientific knowledge” to be found in Buzzoni (1995, passim, especially pp. 209–210) and (1997, passim, especially pp. 25, 30, and 40).

  5. For an application to the problem of theoretical entities (including microphysics), see Buzzoni (1997).

  6. On the relationship between perspectivalism and the connection of cause and effect, see above all Huw Price's causal perspectivalism (cf. Price 2007; Ismael 2016). For a criticism of Price's causal perspectivalism, see Buzzoni (2014).

  7. 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.

  8. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Agazzi E (2014) Scientific objectivity and its contexts. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Babich B (1994) Nietzsche’s philosophy of science. State University of New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel W (2006) Discovering cell mechanisms: the creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel W (2008) Mental mechanisms. Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni M (1995) Scienza e tecnica. Teoria ed esperienza nelle scienze della natura. Studium, Rom

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni M (1997) Erkenntnistheoretische und ontologische Probleme der theoretischen Begriffe. J Gen Philos Sci 28:19–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni M (2008) Thought experiment in the natural sciences. Königshausen + Neumann, Würzburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzoni M (2014) The agency theory of causality, anthropomorphism, and simultaneity. Int Stud Philos Sci 28:375–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver CF (2001) Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philos Sci 68:53–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver CF (2007) Explaining the brain. Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craver CF (2013) Functions and mechanisms: a perspectivalist view. In: Huneman P (ed) Functions: selection and mechanisms. Springer, Berlin, pp 133–158

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Darden L (2008) Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philos Sci 75:958–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1938) Logic. The theory of inquiry. Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilworth C (1981) Scientific progress: a study concerning the nature of the relation between successive scientific theories. Reidel, Dordrecht (4th ed. 2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eronen MI (2013) No levels, no problems: downward causation in neuroscience. Philos Sci 80:1042–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eronen MI (2015) Levels of organization: a deflationary account. Biol Philos 30:39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frame JM (1987) The doctrine of the knowledge of god. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere RN (1988) Explaining science. A cognitive approach. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giere RN (2006) Scientific perspectivism. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glennan S (2002) Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philos Sci 69:S342–S353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gooding D (1990) Experiment and the making of meaning. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14:575–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding S (1986) The science question in feminism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare C (2010) Realism about tense and perspective. Philos Compass 5(9):760–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwig M (2007) Dictionary of critical realism. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismael J (2016) How do causes depend on us? The many faces of perspectivalism. Synthese 193:245–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janich P (1996) Was ist Wahrheit? Eine philosophische Einführung. Beck, Munich (2nd ed. 2000; quotations are from this edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massimi M (2016) Four kinds of perspectival truth. Philos Phenomenol Res. doi:10.1111/phpr.12300

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (quotations are from the 1962 edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London (2nd ed. 1968; quotations are from this edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1963) Conjectures & refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Poythress VS (1987) Symphonic theology: the validity of multiple perspectives in theology. Zondervan, Grand Rapids

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H (1994) Michael Redhead on quantum logic. In: Clark P, Hale R (eds) Reading Putnam. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueger A (2005) Perspectival models and theory unification. Br J Philos Sci 56:579–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skipper RA Jr, Millstein RL (2005) Thinking about evolutionary mechanisms: natural selection. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36:327–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Buzzoni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9301-7

Keywords

Navigation