In this paper, I will propose a formulation of the contingentism/inevitabilism (C/I) debate that does not require of alternatives to present-day scientific theories that they are equally successful, but rather asks whether they are historically possible. I argue that the debate has already, over the past decades, moved towards a more historical interpretation of the issue, and that it is worth exploring what it would entail to let go of normative considerations altogether. Different answers to inevitability questions still retain the philosophical relevance that originally led Ian Hacking to explore philosophical disagreement in terms of the contingentism/inevitabilism debate.1
...More
Article
George Borg;
(2020)
On 'the application of science to science itself:' Chemistry, instruments, and the scientific labor process
(/isis/citation/CBB166777080/)
Article
Grantham, Todd A.;
(2000)
Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science
(/isis/citation/CBB000110861/)
Article
Radin Dardashti;
(2021)
No-go Theorems: What Are They Good For?
(/isis/citation/CBB827243285/)
Book
Such, Jan;
(2004)
Multiformity of Science
(/isis/citation/CBB000470006/)
Book
Losee, John;
(2005)
Theories on the Scrap Heap: Scientists and Philosophers on the Falsification, Rejection, and Replacement of Theories
(/isis/citation/CBB000550226/)
Article
Patrick M. Duerr;
William J. Wolf;
(2023)
Methodological reflections on the MOND/dark matter debate
(/isis/citation/CBB068401072/)
Article
Dietrich, Michael R.;
Skipper, Robert A., Jr.;
(2007)
Manipulating Underdetermination in Scientific Controversy: The Case of the Molecular Clock
(/isis/citation/CBB000830784/)
Article
Goodwin, William;
(2013)
Sustaining a Controversy: The Non-classical Ion Debate
(/isis/citation/CBB001320750/)
Book
Dascal, Marcelo;
Boantza, Victor D.;
(2011)
Controversies within the Scientific Revolution
(/isis/citation/CBB001250495/)
Article
Eli I. Lichtenstein;
(2021)
(Mis)Understanding scientific disagreement: Success versus pursuit-worthiness in theory choice
(/isis/citation/CBB459964165/)
Article
Kelle Dhein;
(2023)
The cognitive map debate in insects: A historical perspective on what is at stake
(/isis/citation/CBB595507323/)
Article
Luca Sciortino;
(2021)
The emergence of objectivity: Fleck, Foucault, Kuhn and Hacking
(/isis/citation/CBB779990178/)
Article
Cooper, Rachel;
(2004)
Why Hacking Is Wrong about Human Kinds
(/isis/citation/CBB000410747/)
Article
Galina Weinstein;
(2021)
Coincidence and reproducibility in the EHT black hole experiment
(/isis/citation/CBB050506389/)
Article
Kusch, Martin;
(2010)
Hacking's Historical Epistemology: A Critique of Styles of Reasoning
(/isis/citation/CBB001021667/)
Article
Sharrock, Wes;
Leudar, Ivan;
(2002)
Indeterminacy in the Past?
(/isis/citation/CBB000202402/)
Book
Steel, Daniel;
Guala, Francesco;
(2011)
The Philosophy of Social Science Reader
(/isis/citation/CBB001450891/)
Thesis
Davis, Todd Newman;
(2001)
Science and the Constitutive A Priori: Ian Hacking's Philosophy of Scientific Practice in the History of Philosophy of Science
(/isis/citation/CBB001562424/)
Book
Matteo Vagelli;
(2024)
Reconsidering Historical Epistemology: French and Anglophone Styles in History and Philosophy of Science
(/isis/citation/CBB046619128/)
Article
Barbara Bienias;
(2020)
Edward Gresham’s Astrostereon, or A Discourse of the Falling of the Planet (1603), the Copernican paradox, and the construction of early modern proto-scientific discourse
(/isis/citation/CBB482285654/)
Be the first to comment!