Katherina Kinzel
Utrecht University
This paper presents a survey of the literature on the problem of contingency in science. The survey is structured around three challenges faced by current attempts at understanding the conflict between “contingentist” and “inevitabilist” interpretations of scientific knowledge and practice. First, the challenge of definition: it proves hard to define the positions that are at stake in a way that is both conceptually rigorous and does justice to the plethora of views on the issue. Second, the challenge of distinction: some features of the debate suggest that the contingency issue may not be sufficiently distinct from other philosophical debates to constitute a genuine, independent philosophical problem. And third, the challenge of decidability: it remains unclear whether and how the conflict could be settled on the basis of empirical evidence from the actual history of science. The paper argues that in order to make progress in the present debate, we need to distinguish more systematically between different expressions that claims about contingency and inevitability in science can take. To this end, it introduces a taxonomy of different contingency and inevitability claims. The taxonomy has the structure of an ordered quadruple. Each contingency and each inevitability claim contains an answer to the following four questions: (how) are alternatives to current science possible, what types of alternatives are we talking about, how should the alternatives be assessed, and how different are they from actual science?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.05.013
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

The Social Construction of What?Ian Hacking - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.Richard Rorty - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
Knowledge and Social Imagery.David Bloor - 1976 - University of Chicago Press.

View all 59 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Inevitability, Contingency, and Epistemic Humility.Ian James Kidd - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 55:12-19.
Presidential Address: Experimenting with the Scientific Past.Gregory Radick - 2016 - British Journal for the History of Science 49 (2):153-172.
Could Science Be Interestingly Different?Veli Virmajoki - 2018 - Journal of the Philosophy of History 12 (2):303-324.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Laski, Harold J., The State in Theory and Practice.Field Field - 1935 - Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 4:301.
Parmelee, Maurice, Bolshevism, Fascism, and the Liberal Democratic State.Field Field - 1935 - Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 4:301.
State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science.Justin Biddle - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):124-133.
A Solid-State Maxwell Demon.D. P. Sheehan, A. R. Putnam & J. H. Wright - 2002 - Foundations of Physics 32 (10):1557-1595.
Ignorance and Indifference.John D. Norton - 2008 - Philosophy of Science 75 (1):45-68.
Objective Styles in Northern Field Science.Jeff Kochan - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 52:1-12.
Explanatory Rationalism and Contingent Truths.Quentin Smith - 1995 - Religious Studies 31 (2):237 - 242.
O zasadzie racji dostatecznej.Jacek Wojtysiak - 2006 - Roczniki Filozoficzne 54 (1):179-214.


Added to PP index

Total views
328 ( #31,260 of 2,499,692 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #12,206 of 2,499,692 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes