Could Science be Interestingly Different?

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate the issue of the contingency and inevitability of science. First, I point out valuable insights from the existing discussion about the issue. I then formulate a general framework, built on the notion of contrastive explanation and counterfactuals, that can be used to approach questions of contingency of science. I argue, with an example from the existing historiography of science, that this framework could be useful to historians of science. Finally, I argue that this framework shows the existing views on historical contingency and counterfactuals in a new light. The framework also shows the value of existing historiography in philosophical debates.

The tragedy of the canon; or, path dependence in the history and philosophy of science

“…A case can become canonical for a philosophical aim only if its outcome is sensitive to the factors at issue in that question. For instance, the debate over why Arthur Stanley Eddington reported results validating Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity following his 1919 eclipse expedition hinges on such questions of sensitivity (see Virmajoki 2018). Some have argued that Eddington discarded portions of his data for ideological reasons: a pacifist and conscientious objector, he sought to reestablish ties with Germany following World War I and was favorably disposed to results supporting Einstein (e.g.…”

Local explanation in historiography of science

“…I do not think the discrepancy between the philosophical question of contingency and the contingency that local explanations reveal is a reason to reject the explication. As Virmajoki (2018) argues, there are many interesting questions of contingency in historiography that are not relevant to the philosophical question of contingencyin fact, historians are rarely interested in the philosophical question of contingency. Nevertheless, we are able to see, on the basis of the analysis in this section, how far-fetched it would be to think that a local explanation could provide a philosophically interesting insight into science.…”