>From off list ----------------
Dear H. Veeder, I think the link I provide below is well suited to your Vortex thread and is rather self-explanatory. Perhaps you would post it there, as a reply (received privately). http://philosophypeterkinane.com/ Regards, Peter Kinane On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > The post b > elow > includes > part A of chapter 5 from the book > > > > Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism > > by > Hasok Chang > , 2012. (available on amazon.com) > > > > link to complete C > hapter 5: > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing > > > Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science > : A Call to Action > > > Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic? > Plurality: from acceptance to celebration > Monism and pluralism > Why pluralism is not relativism > Is pluralism paralyzing? > Can we afford it all? > > > Plurality > : from acceptance to celebration > > > > I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly > > > convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even > > > genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK, > > > that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist > way of > > > thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded > > > past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look. > > > More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I > > > became convinced that there was something worth preserving in > > > Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO > > > formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas > > > that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me > > > in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of > > > heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it > > > superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the > > > middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make > > > generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too > > > suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a > > > persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions > > > about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own > > > thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common > > > intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific > question, > > > and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict > > > was final. > > <snip> > >
