Garcia, Deivide. (2022) Pluralism in Scientonomy’s Mechanism of Compatibility: Incompatible Pluralism of Mosaics and Pluralism of Compatible Theories. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 201-221.
|Title||Pluralism in Scientonomy’s Mechanism of Compatibility: Incompatible Pluralism of Mosaics and Pluralism of Compatible Theories|
|Resource Type||collection article|
|Collection||Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022)|
This paper explores the relationship between pluralism and scientonomy, i.e., the ways in which scientonomy is or is not pluralist. Scientonomy claims by its zeroth law (the compatibility law) that the elements of the mosaic must be mutually compatible at any time. However, when Harder (2013) proposed to change the law of compatibility, he did it by answering the question of whether two or more elements can coexist in the same mosaic. He said that they can. However, this answer requires a detailed analysis of compatibility’s meaning and its relation to the nature of the mosaic. That detailed analysis leads us to assess scientonomy by contrasting its pluralist and monist aspects. We will argue that Scientonomy embraces some aspects of monism, as well as some aspects of pluralism. As a result, we argue that an adequate form of pluralism is the so-called compatible pluralism of theories, seen from a perspective internal to a scientific mosaic. A second form of pluralism becomes evident from a perspective outside any particular mosaic. It is what we will call the pluralism of incompatible mosaics. To explore these topics, after a brief description of the problem, we will review the main features of the zeroth law. In section three, we will briefly review some forms of pluralism to argue why one of them fits scientonomy better. In the end, in section four, will discuss the variety of monist and pluralist features of scientonomy, focusing on pluralism.