Element contents
Relativism in the Philosophy of Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2020
Summary
'Relativism versus absolutism' is one of the fundamental oppositions that have dominated reflections about science for much of its (modern) history. Often these reflections have been inseparable from wider social-political concerns regarding the position of science in society. Where does this debate stand in the philosophy and sociology of science today? And how does the 'relativism question' relate to current concerns with 'post truth' politics? In Relativism in the Philosophy of Science, Martin Kusch examines some of the most influential relativist proposals of the last fifty years, and the controversies they have triggered. He argues that defensible forms of relativism all deny that any sense can be made of a scientific result being absolutely true or justified, and that they all reject 'anything goes' – that is the thought that all scientific results are epistemically on a par. Kusch concludes by distinguishing between defensible forms of relativism and post-truth thinking.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108979504Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 28 January 2021
References
Alston, W. P., “Epistemic Desiderata,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (1993): 527–51.Google Scholar
Andersen, H., Barker, P. and Chen, X., The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Argamakova, A., “Modeling Scientific Development: Lessons from Thomas Kuhn,” in Mizrahi (ed.), Kuhnian Image, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
Baghramian, M. and Carter, J. A., “Relativism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edn, plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/; accessed January 20, 2020).Google Scholar
Barnes, B., “Acceptance: Science Studies and the Empirical Understanding of Science,” Science, Technology & Human Values 24 (1999): 376–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, B., “Natural Rationality: A Neglected Concept in the Social Sciences,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 6 (1976): 115–26.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., “On the Conventional Character of Knowledge and Cognition,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11 (1981): 303–33.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., “Realism, Relativism and Finitism,” in Raven, D., van Vucht Tijssen, L. and de Wolf, J. (eds.), Cognitive Relativism and Social Science (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1992), pp. 131–47.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. and Bloor, D., “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge,” in Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), pp. 21–47.Google Scholar
Beall, J. C. and Restall, G., Logical Pluralism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellarmine, R., “Letter on Galileo’s Theories (1615),” Modern History Sourcebook (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.asp; accessed January 20, 2020).Google Scholar
Biagioli, M., Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biagioli, M., “The Anthropology of Incommensurability,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 21 (1990): 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A., “Incommensurability Naturalized,” in Soler, Sankey and Hoyningen-Huene (eds.), Rethinking Scientific Change, pp. 21–39.Google Scholar
Bird, A., “Kuhn, Naturalism, and the Social Study of Science,” in Kindi and Arabatzis (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure, pp. 205–30.Google Scholar
Blackwell, R. J., Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, Kindle edition, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloor, D., “Anti-Latour,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30 (1999): 81–112.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., “Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 13 (1982): 267–97.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., “Epistemology or Psychology,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 5 (1975): 382–95.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., Knowledge and Social Imagery, 2nd edn (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Bloor, D., “Relativism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” in Hales (ed.), Companion, pp. 433–55.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., The Enigma of the Aerofoil: Rival Theories in Aerodynamics, 1909–1930 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Bloor, D., Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P., “Der Relativismus des Normativen,” in Gabriel, M. (ed.), Der Neue Realismus (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2014), pp. 362–95.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P., Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Boghossian, P., “How Are Objective Epistemic Reasons Possible?” Philosophical Studies 106 (2001): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P., “Three Kinds of Relativism,” in Hales (ed.), Companion, pp. 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briatte, F., “Interview with David Bloor” (halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01511329/file/InterviewDB_FBriatte2007.pdf, 2007, accessed January 15, 2020).Google Scholar
Carnap, R., The Continuum of Inductive Methods (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1952).Google Scholar
Carter, J. A., Metaepistemology and Relativism (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A., Scientific Ontology: Integrating Naturalized Metaphysics and Voluntarist Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A., “Stance Relativism: Empiricism versus Metaphysics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 (2004): 173–84.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., Evans, R. and Weinel, M., “STS as Science or Politics?” Social Studies of Science 47 (2007): 580–6.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. and Yearley, S., “Epistemological Chicken,” in Pickering (ed.), Science, pp. 343–68.Google Scholar
Creager, A. N. H., “Paradigms and Exemplars Meet Biomedicine,” in Richards and Daston (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure, pp. 151–66.Google Scholar
Crețu, A.-M. and Massimi, M. (eds.), Knowledge from a Human Point of View (New York: Springer, 2019).Google Scholar
Dancy, J., “Moral Particularism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edn, plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-particularism/, accessed January 20, 2020).Google Scholar
Daston, L., “History of Science without Structure,” in Richards and Daston (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure, 115–32.Google Scholar
Dupre, J., The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Durkheim, E., The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, transl. by K. E. Fields (New York: The Free Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P., Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: NLB, 1975).Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P., “Classical Empiricism,” in Feyerabend, P., Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical Papers, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), vol. II, pp. 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P., Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1999).Google Scholar
Field, H., “Epistemology without Metaphysics,” Philosophical Studies 143 (2009): 249–90.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005), Retrying Galileo, 1633–1992 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Friedman, M., “On the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and Its Philosophical Agenda,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29 (1998): 239–71.Google Scholar
Galison, P., “Practice All the Way Down,” in Richards and Daston (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure, pp. 42–70.Google Scholar
Garber, D., “Why the Scientific Revolution Wasn’t a Scientific Revolution,” in Richards and Daston (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure, pp. 133–49.Google Scholar
Giere, R., Scientific Perspectivism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, Kindle edn, 2006).Google Scholar
Greene, J. C., “The Kuhnian Paradigm and the Darwinian Revolution in Natural History,” in Roller, D. H. D (ed.), Perspectives in the History of Science and Technology (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971), pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
Haack, S., Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate: Unfashionable Essays (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Hacking, I., “Introductory Essay,” in Kuhn, Structure, Kindle loc. 59–522.Google Scholar
Hales, S., “Motivations for Relativism as a Solution to Disagreements,” Philosophy 89 (2014): 63–82.Google Scholar
Hazlett, A., “Entitlement and Mutually Recognized Reasonable Disagreement,” Episteme 11 (2014): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M., Poetry, Language, Thought, transl. by A. Hofstadter (New York: Harper & Row, 1971).Google Scholar
Herbert, C., Victorian Relativity: Radical Thought and Scientific Discovery (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Herrnstein Smith, B., Practicing Relativism in the Anthropocene: On Science, Belief and the Humanities (London: Open Humanities Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P., Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P., “Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution,” Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2008): 101–15.Google Scholar
Husserl, E., Logical Investigations (1900), transl. by J. N. Findlay (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970).Google Scholar
James, W., The Will to Believe and Human Immortality (New York: Dover Publications, 1956).Google Scholar
Kellert, S. H., Longino, H. and Waters, C. K. (eds.), Scientific Pluralism (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Revisited (New York: Routledge, 2012).Google Scholar
Köhnke, K. C., The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism, transl. by R. J. Hollingdale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
Kölbel, M., “Faultless Disagreement,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S. CIV (2004): 53–74.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1977).Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, ed. Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 50th edn (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Kusch, M., A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules: Defending Kripke’s Wittgenstein (Chesham: Acumen, 2006).Google Scholar
Kusch, M., “Epistemological Anarchism Meets Epistemic Voluntarism: Feyerabend’s Against Method and van Fraassen’s The Empirical Stance,” in Bschir, K. and Shaw, J. (eds.), Paul Feyerabend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), forthcoming.Google Scholar
Kusch, M., Psychologism: A Case Study in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1995).Google Scholar
Kusch, M., “Relativism in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge Revisited”, in Ashton, N., Kusch, M., McKenna, R. and Sodoma, K. (eds.), Social Epistemology and Epistemic Relativism (New York and London: Routledge, 2020), pp. 184–203.Google Scholar
Kusch, M., “Relativist Stances, Virtues and Vices”, Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society XCIII (2019): 271–91.Google Scholar
Kusch, M., “Review of Latour, Pandora’s Hope and Hacking, The Social Construction of What?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A33 (2002): 639–47.Google Scholar
Kusch, M., “Review of Latour, We Have Never Been Modern,” British Journal for the History of Science 28 (1995): 125–6.Google Scholar
Kusch, M., “Social Epistemology and Scientific Realism,” in Saatsi (ed.), Scientific Realism, 261–75.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Relativism (London and New York: Routledge, 2020).Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., “The Scientistic Stance: The Empirical and the Materialist Stances Reconciled,” Synthese 178 (2011): 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M., “Review Essay on Dynamics of Reason,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2004): 702–12.Google Scholar
Latour, B., We Have Never Been Modern, transl. by C. Porter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Latour, B., “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Facts to Matters of Concern,” Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 225–48.Google Scholar
Longino, H., “Values, Heuristics and the Politics of Knowledge,” in Howard, D., Kourany, J. and Carrier, M. (eds.), The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2008), pp. 68–86.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J., “Relativism and Disagreement,” Philosophical Studies 132 (2007): 17–31.Google Scholar
Massimi, M., “Perspectivism,” in Saatsi (ed.), Scientific Realism, 164–75.Google Scholar
Massimi, M. and McCoy, C. D. (eds.), Understanding Perspectivism: Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects (London: Routledge, 2020).Google Scholar
McIntyre, L., Post-Truth (Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press, Kindle edition, 2018).Google Scholar
McMullin, E., “Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science,” in Horwich, P. (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), 55–78.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M., “Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis: What’s the Argument?” in Mizrahi (ed.), Kuhnian Image, pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image: Time for a Decisive Transformation? (London, New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018).Google Scholar
Okruhlik, K., “Bas van Fraassen’s Philosophy of Science and His Epistemic Voluntarism,” Philosophy Compass 9 (2014): 653–61.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, K., “Science, Sex, and Pictures: Reflections on van Fraassen’s Use of Perspectival Representations,” in Gao, C. and Liu, C. (eds.), Scientific Explanation and Methodology of Science (Singapore: World Scientific, 2014), pp. 156–69.Google Scholar
Patton, L., “Kuhn, Pedagogy, and Practice: A Local Reading of Structure,” in Mizrahi, Kuhnian Image, pp. 113–30.Google Scholar
Pennock, R., “The Postmodern Sin of Intelligent Design Creationism,” Science and Education 19 (2010): 757–78.Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Priest, G., Doubt Truth to Be a Liar (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Rorty, R., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Saatsi, J. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism (London and New York: Routledge, 2018).Google Scholar
Sankey, H., “The Demise of the Incommensurability Thesis,” in Mizrahi, Kuhnian Image, pp. 75–91.Google Scholar
Sankey, H., “Witchcraft, Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion,” Erkenntnis 72 (2010): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidel, M., Epistemic Relativism: A Constructive Critique (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014).Google Scholar
Seidel, M., “Why the Epistemic Relativist Cannot Use the Sceptic’s Strategy: A Comment on Sankey,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013): 134–9.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., “Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” Annual Review of Sociology 21 (1995): 289–321.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., “Homo Phrenologicus: Anthropological Perspectives on an Historical Problem,” in Barnes, B. and Shapin, S. (eds.), Natural Order: Historical Studies in Scientific Culture (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979), pp. 41–71.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Simmel, G., Essays on Religion, transl. by H. J. Helle (Newhaven: Yale University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Soler, L., Sankey, H., and Hoyningen-Huene, P. (eds.), Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison: Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008).Google Scholar
Spiegelberg, H., The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1960).Google Scholar
Street, S., “Evolution and the Normativity of Epistemic Reasons,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (2011): 213–48.Google Scholar
Teller, P., “Of Course Idealizations Are Incommensurable,” in Soler, Sankey, and Hoyningen-Huene (eds.), Rethinking Scientific Change, pp. 247–64.Google Scholar
Timmins, A., “Between History and Philosophy of Science: The Relationship between Kuhn’s Black-Body Theory and Structure,” HOPOS 9 (2019): 371–87.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B., Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B., “Reply to Chakravartty, Jauernig, and McMullin” (www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/ReplyAPA-04.pdf, 2004, accessed September 13, 2018).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B., Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, Kindle edition, 2008).Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B., The Scientific Image (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Kindle edition, 1980).Google Scholar
Veigl, S., “Testing Scientific Pluralism,” unpublished PhD thesis, University of Vienna (2020).Google Scholar
Weber, M., The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings, transl. by P. Baehr and G. C. Wells (New York: Penguin, 2002).Google Scholar
Williams, B., “The Truth in Relativism,” in Williams, Moral Luck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 132–43.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., Nachlass: The Bergen Electronic Edition (CD-Rom, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical Investigations, transl. by E. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953).Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, 3rd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1978).Google Scholar
Wray, K. B., Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Kindle edition, 2011).Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 35
- Cited by