Abstract

Scientific pluralism has gained supporters in philosophy of science during the last decades, since it seems to accurately account for the plural and varied development of science. Arguments in defense of robust, non-merely epistemic pluralistic positions can be found in several contemporary philosophical works. According to these positions, to hold pluralism does not suppose to assume an epistemic position regarding truth and a non-realistic view on scientific theories. Monism can be thought as the “natural” opponent of scientific pluralism. In this paper, we will evaluate the alleged rivalry between the two positions, paying special attention to those riskier, ontologically more robust, pluralistic proposals. We will argue that these strongest versions of pluralism fail to offer an alternative to monism: they either changes the topic or hold a weak skepticism that Hegel develops in the Phenomenology of the Spirit.