Fifteen Eighty Four

Pluralism in research is based on the awareness that often we can answer any research question in different ways. Which one is preferable depends on many factors and circumstances rather than on general rules. This applies in all empirical sciences notwithstanding the traditional conviction that a science has just to seek truth and that truth is unique. However, what is truth? Galileo suggested an answer that was very influential during the Scientific Revolution: the reality of the world is written by God with the language of mathematics. Following Galileo, Newton was able to interpret the entire divine ‘manuscript’ in terms of  general gravitation (1687). Newtonian science remained the undisputed model of science until Einstein introduced in 1905 a new revolutionary vision that radically transformed both macrophysics (relativity theory) and microphysics  (quantum theory).  Afterwords, physicists tried hard, but in vain, to build a synthesis between relativity and quantum theory to re-establish the unity of physics.

In political economy we find  in the same years a similar revolution. Keynes, the influential Cambridge economist, criticized the mainstream classical theory of economics with arguments similar to those used by physicists against the classical school of physics. In both cases reductionism was de-throned, what led to the rejection of the standard models based upon linear dynamics, reversible time, and additive probabilities.  In both disciplines, the reducibility to this sort of models became increasingly problematic because their growing complexity made necessary to capture the influences of all the relevant empirical variables.

This book focuses on the nexus between pluralism and complexity and advocates critical pluralism as a crucial requisite of sound science and—indirectly—of liberty and democracy. Critical pluralism rejects active intolerance (expressing prejudicial opposition to different points of view) and advocates active tolerance, welcoming any opportunity of learning from different points of view. This open-minded attitude should aim at establishing a constructive dialogue between interlocutors entertaining different views. This calls for systematic initiatives meant to substantiate tolerance and constructive dialogue on scientific issues. In a few historical examples discussed in my book, I try hard to understand the alternative points of view fighting for hegemony, running the risk of being accused of relativism or eclecticism, attitudes that I don’t endorse. However, as is well known, the tolerance for intolerants risks to increase the power of intolerants. It is very difficult to build trust while it is very easy to destroy it. What is important is thus to keep alive in a field of research a constructive dialogue between all the virtual interlocutors, while each of them should remain open to the possibility of learning something significant from their opponents.

This book discusses critical pluralism as the object of a specific field of study. Often the word pluralism has been used simply in a descriptive sense to designate a plurality of alternative models or theories on the same subject. What we need is much more. First, we need a systematic study of the interactions between different forms of approaches referring to the same issues and their normative implications. Second, we have to study causes and effects of different varieties of pluralism on the evolution of science and its influence on society.