Is Water H2O? pp 253-301 | Cite as

Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action

  • Hasok Chang
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 293)

Abstract

In this chapter I present a sustained and systematic defence of pluralism in science, building on various hints from earlier chapters. I define my position as “active normative epistemic pluralism”. Based on the recognition of the benefits of having multiple systems of practice in each field of study, pluralism as I intend it is an active stance committed to the cultivation of plurality. There are two types of benefits of plurality. Benefits of toleration arise from simply allowing multiple systems simultaneously, which provides insurance against unpredictability, compensation for the limitations of each system, and multiple satisfaction of any given aim. Benefits of interaction arise from the integration of different systems for specific purposes, the co-optation of beneficial elements across systems, and the productive competition between systems. Pluralism should not be confused with an abdication of judgment: each pluralist has the freedom and responsibility to evaluate the quality and value of scientific work. Pluralism can deliver its benefits without a paralyzing relativism or an uncontrolled dissipation of resources. In practice, the kind of pluralism I advocate comes down to a directive to proliferate valuable systems of knowledge: this has concrete implications for scientific practice, and also gives new purpose and approach to the history and philosophy of science, in line with my vision of history and philosophy of science as “complementary science”.

Keywords

Intelligent Design Critical Awareness Empirical Adequacy Atomic Chemistry Phlogiston Theory 
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.

References

  1. Allchin, Douglas. 1992. Phlogiston after oxygen. Ambix 39: 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allchin, Douglas. 1997. Rekindling phlogiston: From classroom case study to interdisciplinary relationships. Science and Education 6: 473–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, Philip W. 1972. More is different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science 177(4047): 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, Philip W. 2001. Science: A ‘dappled world’ or a ‘seamless web’? [Essay review of Nancy Cartwright, The dappled world]. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 32: 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arabatzis, Theodore. 2008. Causes and contingencies in the history of science: A plea for a pluralist historiography. Centaurus 50: 32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 1996. Between history and memory: Centennial and bicentennial images of Lavoisier. Isis 87: 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein, Richard J. 1989. Pragmatism, pluralism and the healing of wounds. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 3(63): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birks, J.B., ed. 1962. Rutherford at Manchester. London: Heywood.Google Scholar
  9. Bloor, David. 2007. Epistemic grace: Antirelativism as theology in disguise. Common Knowledge 13: 250–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bridgman, Percy Williams. 1927. The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, Harvey. 2005. Physical relativity: Space-time structure from a dynamical perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cat, Jordi, Nancy Cartwright, and Hasok Chang. 1996. Otto Neurath: Politics and the unity of science. In The disunity of science, ed. Peter Galison and David Stump, 347–369. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chang, Hasok. 1995. The quantum counter-revolution: Internal conflicts in scientific change. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 26: 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chang, Hasok. 1997. Can Planck’s constant be measured with classical mechanics? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11: 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang, Hasok. 1999. History and philosophy of science as a continuation of science by other means. Science and Education 8: 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang, Hasok. 2002. Rumford and the reflection of radiant cold: Historical reflections and metaphysical reflexes. Physics in Perspective 4: 127–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chang, Hasok. 2007b. The myth of the boiling point. http://www.cam.ac.uk/hps/chang/boiling. First posted on 18 Oct 2007.
  20. Chang, Hasok. 2009b. We have never been whiggish (about phlogiston). Centaurus 51: 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chang, Hasok. 2011c. How historical experiments can improve scientific knowledge and science education: The cases of boiling water and electrochemistry. Science and Education 20: 317–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collins, Harry M. 2004. Gravity’s shadow: The search for gravitational waves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. De Regt, Henk, Sabina Leonelli, and Kai Eigner, eds. 2009. Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  24. Duhem, Pierre. 1962. The aim and structure of physical theory. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, James, and Alan S. Thorndike, eds. 2007. Quantum mechanics at the crossroads: New perspectives from history, philosophy and physics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Faraday, Michael. 1834. Experimental researches in electricity, seventh series. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 124: 77–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against method. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  28. Feyerabend, Paul. 1999. The conquest of abundance: A tale of abstraction vs. the richness of being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Forman, Paul. 1987. Behind quantum electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940–1960. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18(1): 149–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fortun, Mike, and Herbert J. Bernstein. 1998. Muddling through: Pursuing science and truths in the 21st century. Berkeley: Counterpoint.Google Scholar
  31. Freund, Ida. 1904. The study of chemical composition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fuller, Steve. 2008b. Dissent over descent: Intelligent design’s challenge to Darwinism. Cambridge: Icon Books.Google Scholar
  33. Galison, Peter. 1988. History, philosophy, and the central metaphor. Science in Context 2: 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gillies, Donald A. 2008. How should research be organised? London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Gordin, Michael. 2004. A well-ordered thing: Dmitrii Mendeleev and the shadow of the periodic table. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hacking, Ian. 2000. How inevitable are the results of successful science? Philosophy of Science 67: 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hartley, Harold. 1971. Studies in the history of chemistry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hertz, Heinrich. 1899. The principles of mechanics (trans: Jones, D.E., and Walley, J.T.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Holton, Gerald. 1978. Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan–Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9: 161–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holton, Gerald, Hasok Chang, and Edward Jurkowitz. 1996. How a scientific discovery is made: A case history. American Scientist 84: 364–375.Google Scholar
  43. Kellert, Stephen H., Helen E. Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters, eds. 2006. Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, Kiheung. 2006. The social construction of disease: From scrapie to prion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  47. Knight, David. 1967. Atoms and elements. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  48. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977. Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and theory change, 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Kuhn, Thomas S. 2000. The road since Structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Laudan, Larry. 1981. A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science 48: 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liebig, Justus. 1851. Familiar letters on chemistry, in its relations to physiology, dietetics, agriculture, commerce, and political economy, 3rd ed. London: Taylor, Walton, & Maberly.Google Scholar
  55. Longino, Helen. 2006. Theoretical pluralism and the scientific study of behavior. In Scientific pluralism, ed. Stephen H. Kellert, Helen Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters, 102–131. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  56. Melhado, Evan M. 1980. Jacob Berzelius: The emergence of his chemical system. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  57. Miller, Arthur I. 1998. Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity: Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905–1911). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2003. Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2009. Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Pickering, Andrew. 1984. Constructing quarks: A sociological history of particle physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Popper, Karl. 1970. Normal science and its dangers. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 51–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Popper, Karl. 1981. The rationality of scientific revolutions. In Scientific revolutions, ed. Ian Hacking, 80–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Preston-Thomas, H. 1990. The international temperature scale of 1990 (ITS-90). Metrologia 27: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Priestley, Joseph. 1790. Experiments and observations on different kinds of air, and other branches of natural philosophy, connected with the subject, vol. 3, 2nd ed. Birmingham: Thomas Pearson.Google Scholar
  65. Putnam, Hilary. 1995. Pragmatism: An open question. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  66. Ratzsch, Del. 1996. The battle of beginnings: Why neither side is winning the creation–evolution debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  67. Ruse, Michael. 2005. The evolution–creation struggle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Scerri, Eric R. 2007. The periodic table: Its story and significance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Scheffler, Israel. 1999. A plea for plurealism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 35: 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Shea, William. 1987. The quest for scientific rationality: Some historical considerations. In Rational changes in science: Essays on scientific reasoning, ed. Joseph C. Pitt and Marcello Pera, 155–176. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  72. Skloot, Rebecca. 2010. The immortal life of Henrietta lacks. New York/London: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Sobel, Dava. 1995. Longitude: The true story of a lone genius who solved the greatest scientific problem of his time. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
  74. Soler, Léna. 2008. Revealing the analytical structure and some intrinsic major difficulties of the contingentist/inevitabilist issue. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39: 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding our grasp: Science, history and the problem of unconceived alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thagard, Paul. 1978. Why astrology is a pseudoscience. PSA 1978: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1, 223–234.Google Scholar
  77. Van Fraassen, Bas. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watkins, John. 1970. Against normal science. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 25–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a final theory. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  80. Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical investigations (trans: Anscombe, G.E.M.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Worboys, Michael. 2000. Spreading germs: Diseases, theories, and medical practice in Britain, 1865–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Wylie, Alison, ed. 2006. Epistemic diversity and dissent, Part 1. Special issue of Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, vol. 3, issue 1/2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hasok Chang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of Science Free School LaneUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations