Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up
Philosophers and historians of science have for some time now debated whether the results of current science are ‘contingent’ or ‘inevitable’. Scholars have noted that inevitabilism often enjoys the status of a presumptive default position. Consequently, contingentists are, from the outset, lumbered...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2019
|
| _version_ | 1797052832562544640 |
|---|---|
| author | Aylward, A |
| author_facet | Aylward, A |
| author_sort | Aylward, A |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Philosophers and historians of science have for some time now debated whether the results of current science are ‘contingent’ or ‘inevitable’. Scholars have noted that inevitabilism often enjoys the status of a presumptive default position. Consequently, contingentists are, from the outset, lumbered with the burden of proof. This is evident in the case of the inevitabilist demand that the contingentist “put up or shut up” (PUSU). This paper adds to the existing case which says that inevitabilism's default-status is unjustified. However, whilst some have suggested that contingentism should replace inevitabilism as the default position, I argue that the contingency/inevitability (C/I) conversation should proceed sans default. This move is motivated largely by my claim that the C/I issue is best conceived as a ‘local’, rather than a global or universal one. The main problem with taking inevitabilism or contingentism as the default is the globalist nature of such a tack. Whilst localism is arguably an emergent reality of the growing C/I literature, its implications have not been fully realised. I suggest that fully and explicitly embracing localism, including the closely related move of doing away with defaults, represents the most promising way forward for the C/I conversation. In addition, I will show how these moves entail that we stop worrying about the inevitabilist PUSU demand, or more bluntly, that we shut up about putting-up. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:36:12Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:0b50e12d-978f-4797-9c9f-513c18a71a01 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:36:12Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:0b50e12d-978f-4797-9c9f-513c18a71a012022-03-26T09:28:48ZAgainst defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-upJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0b50e12d-978f-4797-9c9f-513c18a71a01EnglishSymplectic ElementsElsevier2019Aylward, APhilosophers and historians of science have for some time now debated whether the results of current science are ‘contingent’ or ‘inevitable’. Scholars have noted that inevitabilism often enjoys the status of a presumptive default position. Consequently, contingentists are, from the outset, lumbered with the burden of proof. This is evident in the case of the inevitabilist demand that the contingentist “put up or shut up” (PUSU). This paper adds to the existing case which says that inevitabilism's default-status is unjustified. However, whilst some have suggested that contingentism should replace inevitabilism as the default position, I argue that the contingency/inevitability (C/I) conversation should proceed sans default. This move is motivated largely by my claim that the C/I issue is best conceived as a ‘local’, rather than a global or universal one. The main problem with taking inevitabilism or contingentism as the default is the globalist nature of such a tack. Whilst localism is arguably an emergent reality of the growing C/I literature, its implications have not been fully realised. I suggest that fully and explicitly embracing localism, including the closely related move of doing away with defaults, represents the most promising way forward for the C/I conversation. In addition, I will show how these moves entail that we stop worrying about the inevitabilist PUSU demand, or more bluntly, that we shut up about putting-up. |
| spellingShingle | Aylward, A Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up |
| title | Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up |
| title_full | Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up |
| title_fullStr | Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up |
| title_full_unstemmed | Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up |
| title_short | Against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency/inevitability conversation: Or, why we should shut up about putting-up |
| title_sort | against defaultism and towards localism in the contingency inevitability conversation or why we should shut up about putting up |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aylwarda againstdefaultismandtowardslocalisminthecontingencyinevitabilityconversationorwhyweshouldshutupaboutputtingup |