Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
for certain tasks and less so for others. Equipped with suitable conceptual and exper-
imental tools, we can measure, for instance, binding energies, inter-atomic distances,
activation enthalpies, and other theoretical values, which might lead to further theoret-
ical explanations, classifications, predictions, synthetic strategies, etc. If the conditions
and assumptions, which are part of any conceptual approach, are carefully listed, and
premature generalization avoided, the skeptic has little to object to other than repeating
the assumptions. But why should one expect unconditional knowledge from science?
As a rule, scientific knowledge about the external world comes in the form: If we pose a
certain question and take this method which includes these restrictions and those
assumptions, we get that answer with that degree of certainty. Epistemological realism
is thus not only compatible with, but even requires pluralism, because conceptual
approaches need to be tailored to specific questions to provide precise and reliable
answers. Philosophically speaking, the epistemology that is anchored in the research
practice of chemistry is perspectivism.
Once we drop the obscure idea of “scientific realism” and look instead at what
chemists do, philosophical realism turns out to be institutionalized in all its three
traditional forms: metaphysical, conceptual, and epistemological.
5.8 Conclusion: The Advantages of Pluralism
In Sects.
5.2
,
5.3
, and
5.4
, I have argued that pluralism is, as a matter of fact, the
methodological constitution of science in general and of chemistry in particular and
that it is inevitable for both practical and epistemological reasons. Against that
background, pointing out its advantages over monism appears to be obsolete.
However, the philosophy of science that has dominated for decades the debate
has focused so much on a single, mono-purpose, and exceptionally uniform
subdiscipline, mathematical physics, that it has created a strong taste for monism
which is difficult to convince of what is obvious. The unspoken implication of
monism is that the actual science, with its ever growing divergence into method-
ologically different disciplines, subdisciplines, and research fields, is a deeply
irrational enterprise. In contrast, I suggests that science is a very rational endeavor.
That is not an opportunistic statement seeking agreement from scientists. For, if
pluralism is both inevitable and serves various epistemological needs that scientists
actual have, only a fool would do without it.
There are many other benefits of pluralism, some of which have already been
discussed in detail by Hasok Chang (2012, chap. 5.2) or mentioned before. First of
all, if we acknowledge that biology, physics, chemistry, geology and so on (as well
as correspondingly their various research fields) have different subject matter and
different research aims that require different methods, it is obvious that monism can
pick only a single aspect and disregard the rest. Pluralism instead allows a
non-hierarchical division of labor, which in most fields of society is the most
effective and successful approach. Moreover, as new kinds of issues arise, either
out of the research process or by societal demand, science can flexibly adjust by
