View source for Philosophy:Epistemological pluralism

__NOTOC__
'''Epistemological pluralism''' is a term used in [[Philosophy:Philosophy|philosophy]], [[Finance:Economics|economics]], and virtually any field of study to refer to different ways of knowing things, different [[Philosophy:Epistemology|epistemological]] [[Methodology|methodologies]] for attaining a fuller description of a particular field.<ref name=Kellert/> A particular form of epistemological pluralism is dualism, for example, the separation of methods for investigating mind from those appropriate to matter (see [[Philosophy:Mind–body problem|mind–body problem]]). By contrast, [[Philosophy:Monism|monism]] is the restriction to a single approach, for example, [[Philosophy:Reductionism|reductionism]], which asserts the study of all phenomena can be seen as finding relations to some few basic entities.<ref name=Schaffer/>

Epistemological pluralism is to be distinguished from ontological pluralism, the study of different modes of being, for example, the contrast in the mode of existence exhibited by "numbers" with that of "people" or "cars".<ref name=Gardner/><ref name=Spencer/>

In the [[Philosophy:Philosophy of science|philosophy of science]] epistemological pluralism arose in opposition to [[Philosophy:Reductionism|reductionism]] to express the contrary view that at least some natural phenomena cannot be fully explained by a single theory or fully investigated using a single approach.<ref name=Kellert/><ref name=Davies/><ref name=note/>

In [[Mathematics|mathematics]], the variety of possible epistemological approaches includes [[Philosophy:Platonism#Modern Platonism|platonism]] ("mathematics as an objective study of abstract reality, no more created by human thought than the galaxies") [[Intuitionism|radical constructivism]] (with restriction upon logic, banning the proof by ''[[Philosophy:Reductio ad absurdum|reductio ad absurdum]]'' and other limitations), and many other schools of thought.<ref name=Hellman/>

In [[Finance:Economics|economics]] controversy exists between a single epistemological approach to economics and a variety of approaches. "At midcentury, the [[Finance:Neoclassical economics|neoclassical approach]] achieved near-hegemonic status (at least in the United States), and its proponents sought to bring all kinds of social phenomena under its uniform explanatory umbrella. The resistance of some phenomena to neoclassical treatment has led a number of economists to think that alternative approaches are necessary for at least some phenomena and thus also to advocate pluralism."<ref name=Kellert/> An extensive history of these attempts is provided by Sent.<ref name=Sent/>

==See also==
*[[Philosophy:Epistemological anarchism|Epistemological anarchism]]
*[[Philosophy:Interdisciplinarity|Interdisciplinarity]]
*[[Philosophy:Methodological individualism|Methodological individualism]]
*[[Multimethodology]]
*[[Philosophy:Trichotomy|Trichotomy]]
*[[Finance:VPEC-T|VPEC-T]]

==References==
{{reflist |refs=

<ref name=Davies>
{{cite web |url=http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3083/1/EP3single.doc |title=Epistemological pluralism |author=E Brian Davies |year=2006}} Available through [http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/ PhilSci Archive].
</ref>

<ref name=Gardner>
{{cite web |quote=No modern realist believes for a moment that numbers and theorems “exist” in the same way that stones and stars exist. Of course mathematical concepts are mental constructs and products of human culture. |author=Martin Gardner |title=Science in the looking glass: What do scientists really know? (a book review) |url=https://www.ams.org/notices/200511/rev-gardner.pdf |work=Notices of the American Mathematical Society |pages=1344 ''ff'' |date=December 2005}}
</ref>

<ref name=Kellert>
{{cite book |chapter=Introduction: The pluralist stance |author1=Stephen H Kellert |author2=Helen E Longino |author3=C Kenneth Waters |chapter-url=http://www.mcps.umn.edu/assets/pdf/19intro_scipluralism.pdf |page = vii |title=Scientific pluralism; volume XIX in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science |isbn= 978-0-8166-4763-7  |year=2006 |publisher=The University of Minnesota Press}}
</ref>

<ref name=Hellman>
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 4: Pluralism and the foundation of mathematics |author1=Geoffrey Hellman |author2=John L Bell |editor1=Stephen H Kellert |editor2=Helen E Longino |editor3=C Kenneth Waters |chapter-url=http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hellm001/Publications/PluralismMSPS.pdf |pages = 64 ''ff'' |title=Scientific pluralism; volume XIX in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science |isbn= 978-0-8166-4763-7  |year=2006 |publisher=The University of Minnesota Press}}
</ref>

<ref name=note>
There is ongoing controversy over the application of neuroscience to psychology. For example, Talvitie and Ihanus say: "As far as psychoanalytic explanations refer to the mental unconscious, they cannot be verified with the help of neuroscience. Neither is it possible to form a picture of how a neuro-viewpoint might be of help for psychoanalytic theorizing." {{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1745-8315.2011.00458.x |pmid=22212043|title=On neuropsychoanalytic metaphysics|journal=The International Journal of Psychoanalysis|volume=92|issue=6|pages=1583–1601|year=2011|last1=Talvitie|first1=Vesa|last2=Ihanus|first2=Juhani|s2cid=205910970}} and Edleson: "It is also contended that the theories of psychoanalysis cannot be logically derivable from
the theories of neuroscience, physics, or chemistry" {{cite journal |url=http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1987-09103-001 |title=The convergence of psychoanalysis and neuroscience: Illusion and reality}}
</ref>

<ref name=Schaffer>
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 12: On what grounds what |author=Jonathan Schaffer |quote=Metaphysics so revived does not bother asking whether properties, meanings, and numbers exist. Of course they do! The question is whether or not they are ''fundamental''. |chapter-url=http://www.jonathanschaffer.org/grounds.pdf |title=  Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology |year=2009 |pages=57–83 |isbn=978-0199546046 |publisher=Oxford University Press |editor1=David Chalmers |editor2=David Manley |editor3=Ryan Wasserman }}
</ref>

<ref name=Sent>
{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 5: Pluralism in economics |author= Esther-Mirjam Sent |editor1=Stephen H Kellert |editor2=Helen E Longino |editor3=C Kenneth Waters |chapter-url=http://www.uu.nl/faculty/leg/nl/organisatie/departementen/departementeconomie/onderzoek/seminarserie/previousseminars/extfeb04jun04/Documents/10%20maart%20Sent.pdf |pages = 80 ''ff'' |title=Scientific pluralism; volume XIX in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science |isbn= 978-0-8166-4763-7  |year=2006 |publisher=The University of Minnesota Press}}
</ref>

<ref name=Spencer>
{{cite journal |journal=Philosophy Compass |volume=7 |issue=12 |pages=910–918 |date= November 12, 2012 |doi=10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00527.x |author=Joshua Spencer |title=Ways of being |quote=There are numbers, fictional characters, impossible things, and holes. But, we don’t think these things all exist in the same sense as cars and human beings.}}
</ref>

}}

==External links==
*{{cite encyclopedia |author=Jordi Cat |title=The Unity of Science: Epistemological unities |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition)|editor=Edward N. Zalta |chapter-url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/#EpiUni |date=May 16, 2013|chapter=The Unity of Science |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University }} 
*{{cite encyclopedia |author=William A. Gorton |title=The philosophy of social science: §5 – Methodological pluralism  |url= http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-sci/#H5 |date=August 31, 2010 |encyclopedia=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy }}
*{{cite book |title=Alexandria 5: The Journal of Western Cosmological Traditions |chapter=Science's missing half: Epistemological pluralism and the search for an inclusive cosmology |author=David Fideler |chapter-url=http://davidfideler.net/files/epistemological-pluralism.pdf |publisher=Phanes Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-1890482756 |page=41 ''ff''}}


[[Category:Epistemological theories]]
[[Category:Pluralism (philosophy)]]

{{Sourceattribution|Epistemological pluralism}}