The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science
Abstract
The great dream of philosophers and scientists has been to give a complete account of the order of things. The articulation of such a dream in the 20th century has been expressed in the idea of a unity of science. John Dupre systematically attacks the idea of scientific unity by showing how its underlying assumptions are at odds with the basic conclusions of science itself. In its stead, the author gives us a metaphysical interpretation much more in keeping with what science tells us about the world. The order presupposed by scientific unity is expressed in the classical philosophical doctrines of essentialism, materialist reductionism, and determinism. Employing examples from biology, that most of sciences, Dupre subjects each of these doctrines to detailed and devastating criticism. He also identifies the shortcomings of contemporary approaches to scientific disunity, such as constructivism and extreme empiricism. He argues that we should adopt a moderate realism consistent with pluralistic science. Dupre's proposal for a promiscuous realism acknowledges the existence of a fundamentally disordered world, in which different projects or perspectives may reveal distinct, somewhat isolated, but nevertheless perfectly real, domains of partial order. This argument makes connections with discussions of science and value, especially in the work of feminist scholars. In Dupre's view, we have a great deal of choice about which scientific projects to pursue, a choice that can be informed only by value judgements. Such choices determine not only what kinds of order we observe in nature, but also what kinds of order we impose on the world we observe.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How science makes environmental controversies worse
Sarewitz, D. (2004) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001 · Cited by 1,194
Psychological essentialism in children
GELMAN, S. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001 · Cited by 492
On the failure of modern species concepts
HEY, J. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.011 · Cited by 357
Varieties of Living Things: Life at the Intersection of Lineage and Metabolism
Dupré, J., & O'Malley, M. A. (2009) · Philosophy and Theory in Biology · doi:10.3998/ptb.6959004.0001.003 · Cited by 326
QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism
Fuchs, C. A. (2010) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1003.5209 · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1993-06-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 30-5546-30-5546
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2022620096
- Cited by
- 1,386
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.30-5546
- The paper
- The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. (1993). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-5546
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.