title: State of the field: Are the results of science contingent or inevitable?
abstract: This paper presents a survey of the literature on the problem of contingency in science. The survey is structured around three challenges faced by current attempts at understanding the conflict between "contingentist" and "inevitabilist" interpretations of scientific knowledge and practice. First, the challenge of definition: it proves hard to define the positions that are at stake in a way that is both conceptually rigorous and does justice to the plethora of views on the issue. Second, the challenge of distinction: some features of the debate suggest that the contingency issue may not be sufficiently distinct from other philosophical debates to constitute a genuine, independent philosophical problem. And third, the challenge of decidability: it remains unclear whether and how the conflict could be settled on the basis of empirical evidence from the actual history of science. The paper argues that in order to make progress in the present debate, we need to distinguish more systematically between different expressions that claims about contingency and inevitability in science can take. To this end, it introduces a taxonomy of different contingency and inevitability claims. The taxonomy has the structure of an ordered quadruple. Each contingency and each inevitability claim contains an answer to the following four questions: (how) are alternatives to current science possible, what types of alternatives are we talking about, how should the alternatives be assessed, and how different are they from actual science?
authors.affiliation: Department of Philosophy, University of Vienna, Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: katherina.kinzel@univie.ac.at.
authors.forename: Katherina
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kinzel
mesh_terms: D019359:Knowledge; D010684:Philosophy; D012586:Science
keywords: Alternative sciences; Contingency; Counterfactual history; Inevitability; Social constructivism