Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:02:59.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Through the Fractured Looking Glass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Sandra D. Mitchell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that diversity and pluralism are valuable not just for science but for philosophy of science. Given the partiality and perspectivism of representation, pluralism preserving integration can increase accuracy. Perspectivism is often supported by appeal to visual representation. I draw further insights from multimodel sensory integration for understanding experiment-based predictions of protein structure. The epistemic lessons learned from the scientific case also apply to philosophy of science itself. Finally, I suggest that a critical, nuanced philosophical view of legitimate sources of pluralism in science has an important role to play in public discourse.

Type
Presidential Address
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 87 , Issue 5: PSA 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II Symposia Papers , December 2020 , pp. 771 - 792
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This article is a revised version of the presidential address I delivered at the PSA 2018 biennial meeting in Seattle, Washington. The presented version can be viewed at https://spark.adobe.com/page/AiXfAUmLTaEbB/. It takes the contributions of many to ensure a successful meeting and an effective organization. I want to thank PSA 2018 program chairs Kevin Elliott and Doreen Fraser and the members of the PSA Governing Board, PSA committees, and PSA members for their commitment and skill at navigating the complexities and coordination problems involved. I especially want to thank our extraordinary executive director, Jessica Pfeifer, for her wise and inspired leadership.

References

Carlon, Azzura, Ravera, Enrico, Hennig, Janosch, Parigi, Giacomo, Sattler, Michael, and Luchinat, Claudio. 2016. “Improved Accuracy from Joint X-Ray and NMR Refinement of a Protein-RNA Complex Structure.” Journal of the American Chemical Society 138:1601–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2012. Is Water H2O? Evidence, Pluralism and Realism. Dordrecht: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2018. “Realism for Realistic People.” Spontaneous Generations 9:31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contessa, Gabriele. 2007. “Scientific Representation, Interpretation, and Surrogative Reasoning.” Philosophy of Science 74:48–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, John, et al. 2016. “Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters 11 (4). https://doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2014. “The Moral Terrain of Science.” Erkenntnis 79:961–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, Stephen M. 1993. “Socializing Naturalized Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 60:452–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fehr, Carla, and Plaisance, Kathryn S.. 2010. “Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 177:301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gessen, Masha. 2018. “Why the Tree of Life Shooter Was Fixated on the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.” New Yorker, October 27. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-tree-of-life-shooter-was-fixated-on-the-hebrew-immigrant-aid-society.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1999. Science without Laws. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N.. 2006a. “Perspectival Pluralism in Scientific Pluralism.” In Scientific Pluralism, ed. Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E., and Waters, C. Kenneth, 26–41. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald N.. 2006b. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N.. 2010. “An Agent-Based Conception of Models and Scientific Representation.” Synthese 172:269–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is Strong Objectivity?” In Feminist Epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 2009. “Standpoint Theories: Productively Controversial.” Hypatia 24:192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Robert. 2013. Seeing Things: The Philosophy of Reliable Observation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptional Development of Science. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, Bill, Phelps, Jordyn, and Gutman, Matt. 2018. “Trump Admits He Has ‘No Proof’ of ‘Middle Easterners’ in Caravan, ‘But There Could Very Well Be.’” ABC news, October 23. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admits-proof-middle-easterners-caravan/story?id=58686056.Google Scholar
John, Stephen. 2018. “Epistemic Trust and the Ethics of Science Communication: Against Transparency, Openness, Sincerity and Honesty.” Social Epistemology 32 (2): 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” Journal of Philosophy 87:5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuorikoski, Jaakko, and Marchionni, Caterina. 2016. “Evidential Diversity and the Triangulation of Phenomena.” Philosophy of Science 83:227–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2001. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2016. “Four Kinds of Perspectival Truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 96 (2): 342–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Massimi, Michela. 2018. “Perspectival Modeling.” Philosophy of Science 85:335–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. 1992. “On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations.” American Zoologist 32 (1): 135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D.. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D.. 2009. Unsimple Truths: Science, Complexity and Policy. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D.. 2012. “Emergence: Logical, Functional and Dynamical Accounts.” Synthese 185:171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D.. 2020. “Perspectives, Representation and Integration.” In Understanding Perspectivism: Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects, ed. Massimi, Michela and McCoy, Casey D.. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D., and Gronenborn, Angela M.. 2017. “After Fifty Years, Why Are Protein X-Ray Crystallographers Still in Business?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68:703–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2014. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” In Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, ed. DiMento, Joseph F. C. and Doughman, Pamela, 105–48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perrin, Jean. 1923. Atoms. Trans. Hammic, D. L.. New York: Van Nostrandz. Originally published as Les Atomes (Paris: Alcan, 1913).Google Scholar
Reisch, George A. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley C. 1984. Scientific Explanation and Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio, and Chrisman, Nicholas. 2001. “Deflationary Metaphysics and the Nature of Maps.” Philosophy of Science 68 (Proceedings): S38–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence. 1999. “The Reduction(?) of Thermodynamics to Statistical Mechanics.” Philosophical Studies 95:187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, Lawrence. 2015. “Philosophy of Statistical Mechanics.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/statphys-statmech/.Google Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenga, Jacob. 2009. “Robustness, Discordance, and Relevance.” Philosophy of Science 76:650–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Barry E., and Stanford, Terrence R.. 2008. “Multisensory Integration: Current Issues from the Perspective of the Single Neuron.” Nature Review Neuroscience 9:255–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Teller, Paul. 2001. “Twilight of the Perfect Model Model.” Erkenntnis 55:393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1953. The Philosophy of Science: An Introduction. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Woodward, James F. 2005. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison H. 1999. “Rethinking Unity as a ‘Working Hypothesis’ for Philosophy of Science: How Archaeologists Exploit the Disunities of Science.” Perspectives on Science 7:293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar