Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Chapter 5
The Methodological Pluralism of Chemistry
and Its Philosophical Implications
Joachim Schummer
5.1
Introduction
Much of today
s mainstream philosophy of science is still built on the normative
assumption that science should develop one comprehensive and logically consistent
image of the world. Because there is only one world, science must strive for its
perfect image to be pursued by the best method, the primary rule of which requires
that contradictory views should be avoided or eliminated. For philosophers, meth-
odology thus came to be known as the art of evaluating competing images or
theories, with the implication that in the end one such method could ideally lead
to one perfect theory (methodological monism). In contrast, scientists consider
methodology the art of raising and solving epistemic issues, from formulating
interesting research questions, to planning and conducting experimental research
and discussing their results. As diverse as the research methods are, as diverse are at
least the results.
Methodological pluralism, as understood in this paper, comprises both the
diversities of research approaches and the resulting views on the world. The case
of chemistry is particularly apt to illustrate pluralism of various kinds, such that this
paper only adds to a longer list of previous work (e.g. Bachelard 1932; Hoffmann
and Laszlo
1991
; Chang
2012
). As pluralism slowly gains acceptance in main-
stream philosophy (e.g. Kellert et al.
2006
), chemistry is expected to attract more
attention, because there are valuable philosophical lessons to learn from it.
In the following I will first point out the pluralist constitution of science in
general and of chemistry in particular and then argue that it is inevitable for
epistemological reasons (Sects.
5.1
,
5.2
, and
5.3
). Once methodological pluralism
'
