Scientific Pluralism

The recognition that there are multiple, legitimate ways of doing science, multiple valid methods, multiple useful ontologies, and that no single approach exhausts reality. Different sciences study different scales with different tools; within a science, multiple models may coexist (particle vs. wave). Pluralism doesn't mean "anything goes"—it means the world is various, and our ways of knowing must be various too. The pluralist doesn't seek the one true method—they seek the right tool for the job, and they carry many tools.

"You keep insisting that only quantitative methods are real science. Scientific Pluralism says: ecology needs ethnography, physics needs mathematics, medicine needs narrative. Different jobs, different tools. Your one-size-fits-all scientism isn't rigorous—it's just narrow."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Model-Dependency

The insight that what we observe in science depends critically on the models we use to observe. Our instruments are built on models. Our data analysis assumes models. Our theories are models. We never access reality raw—we access reality filtered through models, and different models reveal different aspects. This isn't idealism (reality exists) but dependency: what we can say about reality is always mediated by the models we've built. Scientific progress is partly about building better models, but also about understanding what each model hides along with what it reveals.

"You think climate models are just predictions? Scientific Model-Dependency says: they're also what makes climate visible at all. Without models, you have weather, not climate. The model isn't just representing reality—it's creating the conditions for you to see it. Respect the dependency."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Conceptualism

The position that scientific concepts are not simply discovered in nature but are human creations that shape what we can think and observe. "Gene," "species," "force," "mental illness"—these aren't natural kinds waiting to be found; they're tools we've developed to organize experience. They're real in their effects, but their reality depends on our conceptual activity. Scientific Conceptualism studies how concepts are born, how they change, and how they die. It's the science of how science thinks its own thoughts.

"Before 'trauma' was a concept, people had the experiences but couldn't name them. Scientific Conceptualism says: the concept didn't just describe something pre-existing—it created a new way to be a person. Concepts aren't just labels; they're world-makers."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Metaphilosophy

The philosophical examination of the philosophy of science itself—stepping back to ask what philosophy of science is doing, what its methods are, how it changes over time, and what counts as progress within it. Metaphilosophy doesn't ask "what is science?" but "what are we doing when we ask what science is?" It's the discipline's self-reflection, its attempt to understand its own assumptions, its own ghosts, its own history. For those who find philosophy of science interesting, metaphilosophy is where you go when you find philosophy of science's assumptions interesting too.

"You're arguing about whether Kuhn was right about paradigms. But Scientific Metaphilosophy asks: why are we still using Kuhn's framework to have this argument? What does it mean that we organize philosophy of science around his categories? Who benefits from this way of thinking about thinking about science?"

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Fusion of Horizons

A concept borrowed from Gadamer's hermeneutics and applied to science: the idea that understanding occurs when the horizon of the researcher (their assumptions, methods, questions) fuses with the horizon of the phenomenon (its history, context, behavior) or with the horizon of another researcher. This fusion isn't about one horizon replacing the other—it's about creating a new, enlarged horizon that includes both. Interdisciplinary collaboration, cross-cultural research, even new paradigms emerge from these fusions. The Fusion of Horizons is science as dialogue, as meeting, as transformation on both sides.

"My Western medical training fused with my patients' traditional healing knowledge—not one replacing the other, but both transforming into something new. Scientific Fusion of Horizons: when you stop explaining and start understanding across difference, and neither side comes out the same."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Postpositivism

The dominant philosophy of contemporary science, positioned as a critical refinement of classical positivism. While positivists believed science could achieve certain, objective truth through pure observation, Postpositivism acknowledges that all observation is theory-laden, that absolute certainty is impossible, and that scientific knowledge is fallible and provisional. Yet it maintains that we can still get closer to truth through rigorous methods, peer critique, and the gradual accumulation of evidence. It's positivism that went to therapy, came to terms with its limitations, and decided to keep working anyway.

"My advisor still believes in objective truth but admits every measurement is biased and every theory will eventually be revised. That's Scientific Postpositivism: knowing you'll never be certain, but acting as if getting less wrong matters. It's science with humility, not science with despair."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026

Scientific Metamodernism

A emerging framework for science that oscillates between modernist confidence in scientific progress and postmodernist critique of scientific authority. The Metamodern scientist both believes in truth and doubts their access to it. They commit to methods while deconstructing them. They pursue objectivity while acknowledging its impossibility. This isn't indecision—it's a deliberate oscillation between poles, a knowing naivety that embraces both the power and the limits of science. It's science that has internalized its critique without being paralyzed by it.

"I believe in my data and I know my data is constructed. I trust my methods and I doubt my methods. I'm not confused—I'm Scientific Metamodernism: holding both the thesis of modernism and the antithesis of postmodernism without demanding a final synthesis. The oscillation is the point."

by Abzugal February 23, 2026