From Hacking's Plurality of Styles of Scientific Reasoning to “Foliated” Pluralism: A Philosophically Robust Form of Ontologico-Methodological Pluralism
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 78 (5):1212-1222 (2011)
This essay aims at proposing a “philosophically important” form of scientific pluralism that captures essential features of contemporary scientific pratice largely ignored by the various forms of scientific pluralism currently discussed by philosophers. My starting point is Hacking’s concept of style of scentific reasoning, with a focus on its ontological import. I extend Hacking’s thesis by proposing the process of “ontological enrichment” to grasp how the objects created by a style articulate with the common objects of scientific inquiry “out there in the world”. The result is “foliated pluralism”, which puts to the fore the transdisciplinary and cumulative ways of proceeding in science, as well as the historical dimension of the genesis of scientific objects
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Ian Hacking (1992). 'Style' for Historians and Philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 23 (1):1-20.
P. F. Strawson (1950). On Referring. Mind 59 (235):320-344.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Mieke Boon (2011). Two Styles of Reasoning in Scientific Practices: Experimental and Mathematical Traditions. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (3):255 - 278.
Leen De Vreese (2006). Causal Pluralism and Scientific Knowledge: An Underexposed Problem. Philosophica 77.
Ruth Chang (2012). Value Pluralism. In James Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behaviorial Sciences.
Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen (2014). Pluralism × 3: Truth, Logic, Metaphysics. Erkenntnis 79 (2):259-277.
Manuel Bremer (2014). Restall and Beall on Logical Pluralism: A Critique. Erkenntnis 79 (2):293-299.
John Kelsay (1996). Review: Plurality, Pluralism, and Comparative Ethics: A Review Essay. [REVIEW] Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (2):403 - 428.
Marc Ereshefsky (1992). Eliminative Pluralism. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):671-690.
James Bohman (1997). Pluralism, Indeterminacy and the Social Sciences: Reply to Ingram and Meehan. [REVIEW] Human Studies 20 (4):441-458.
James Bohman (1999). Theories, Practices, and Pluralism: A Pragmatic Interpretation of Critical Social Science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29 (4):459-480.
Jacquelyn Anne K. Kegley (2010). Peirce and Royce and the Betrayal of Science: Scientific Fraud and Misconduct. The Pluralist 5 (2):87-104.
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2003). Reconsidering Feyerabend's 'Anarchism'. Perspectives on Science 11 (2):208-235.
Jeroen van Bouwel & Erik Weber (2008). A Pragmatist Defense of Non-Relativistic Explanatory Pluralism in History and Social Science. History and Theory 47 (2):168–182.
Jordi Cat (2012). Essay Review:Scientific Pluralism* Stephen H. Kellert , Helen E. Longino , and C. Kenneth Waters , Eds., Scientific Pluralism . Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2006), Xxix+248 Pp., $50.00 (Cloth). [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 79 (2):317-325.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads105 ( #12,744 of 1,413,447 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #67,529 of 1,413,447 )
How can I increase my downloads?