Pragmatic pluralism and problem framing
Why pragmatism demands pluralism
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7169041 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Erman Sözüdoğru (0000-0002-2923-5052, Department of Science and Technology, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 115 |
| Pages | 102109 |
| Publication date | 2026-02-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0039-3681 • E-ISSN: 1879-2510 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102109 |
| PMID | 41499823 |
| OpenAlex | W7118660491 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 14 |
In this paper I focus on the benefits of scientific pluralism in practice. My main motivation is to investigate how do these benefits play out in practice, and how do different systems of knowledge come together to address particular questions? One might accept the epistemic benefits of plurality, yet still deem it undesirable for pragmatic reasons. My argument responds to this objection, which assumes that pragmatic demands can supersede the epistemic benefits of pluralism based on the problems at hand. I argue that this objection fails because it assumes problems are independent of inquirers. Building on classical pragmatism, I argue that problems are framed by inquirers and cannot be seen as separate from practices. Rather than facing predefined problems, inquirers confront indeterminate situations, requiring judgements on how to formulate the situation. Different framings are possible based on who is involved in making these judgments. A lack of plurality among inquirers leads to frameworks that overlook certain aspects and complexity. Therefore, pluralism is pragmatically beneficial when framing a problem, enabling inquirers to explore various dimensions of complex situations and enrich problem framing. I illustrate my argument by analysing the early responses to the UK COVID-19 outbreak, showing how the problem was initially framed as biomedical, neglecting social, logistical, and psychological aspects. The lack of plurality in the inquirer community led to shortcomings in the official response. Building on this case, I show that pragmatism demands pluralism when dealing with complex situations, demonstrating that plurality must be promoted in practice, going beyond recognized epistemic benefits. • Scientific pluralism successfully argues for the epistemic benefits of plurality in scientific practice. • There are concerns over the pragmatic benefits of plurality in practice. • Integrative pluralist assess the pragmatic benefits pluralism based on the problem at hand. • Pragmatic pluralist argue problems are framed in scientific practice and cannot be used to assess benefits of plurality. • When framing problems inquirers need to consider different aspects of the situation, so pragmatism demands pluralims
Argument (complex analysis) · Focus (optics) · Framing (construction) · Pluralism (philosophy) · Pragmatism · Embodied and Extended Cognition · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Philosophy and History of Science
Where to after Covid-19? Systems thinking for a human-centred approach to pandemics
Socially-distanced science
Knowledge, Expertise and Science Advice During Covid-19
The Covid-19 pandemic
Articulating the social
Framed and framing inquiry
Notes on a complicated relationship
Pandemics, policy, and pluralism
The Community of Inquiry
| Highly cited | No |
|---|