Abstract
In this paper, I will propose a formulation of the contingentism/inevitabilism (C/I) debate that does not require of alternatives to present-day scientific theories that they are equally successful, but rather asks whether they are historically possible. I argue that the debate has already, over the past decades, moved towards a more historical interpretation of the issue, and that it is worth exploring what it would entail to let go of normative considerations altogether. Different answers to inevitability questions still retain the philosophical relevance that originally led Ian Hacking to explore philosophical disagreement in terms of the contingentism/inevitabilism debate.1
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
