SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION, THEORY CHANGE, AND EPISTEMIC BOUNDARIES IN CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Artemi Sokolov, Leonid Averin · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2026 · philosophy-of-science · 10.5281/zenodo.20073948 · record sokolov2026-scientific-explanation-theory-chan
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is critique because the article's stated central argument is a case AGAINST monistic images of scientific rationality, not a new empirical or formal result. limitations is EMPTY: a full-text search for 'limit', 'this article', 'scope' and 'future' turned up no statement of the article's own limits — the only 'limits' discussed belong to positions the article surveys (e.g. the limits of pluralism), and the closest self-referential sentence ('the present article does not treat scientific explanation, theory change, and epistemic boundaries as separate topics artificially grouped together') is a design choice defended as correct, not conceded as a limit. Only one claim_relation is given: the article's named prior work is almost entirely SEP entries, which it explicitly leans on as its evidential base; Hempel, Popper, Kuhn, van Fraassen and others are narrated as the field's history rather than as work the authors position their own claim against, so per rule 7 no relations were inferred for them. Extraction is clean apart from running page headers ('AMES. Basic Sciences, 2026, vol. 2, issue 2') and de-hyphenated line breaks inside words, which were avoided in all quotes. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
scientific realism 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 18 concept tags on this paper, all 18 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 13 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

scientific explanation deductive-nomological model incommensurability scientific realism theory change Mechanistic accounts unificationist accounts pragmatic accounts of explanation explanatory pluralism underdetermination Constructive empiricism Structural realism empirical adequacy truth about unobservables structural content full ontology objectivity elimination of all values and perspectives Objectivity is produced, not presupposed: structuring methods and communities so that criticism, transparency and diverse perspectives circulate prevents any single bias or standpoint from going unchecked, which is what makes objective claims possible in a socially organised practice Realist commitment survives theory change because what is carried across revolutions is the structural content of superseded theories — their relational organisation, mathematical form and dependency patterns — rather than their full ontology The pluralisation of explanation was driven by the demand for rigour itself: holding accounts answerable to actual scientific practice forced the abandonment of a single universal schema scientific objectivity scientific progress scientific pluralism syntactic view semantic view pragmatic view review

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
unrecordable relation	`unhoused_relations`	a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20073948. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 1 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 5 · concepts 18 · content_tags 19 · limitations 4 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 16 · unhoused_relations 2

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 3 of 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	scientific explanation and theory change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Objectivity is produced, not presupposed: structuring methods and communities so that criticism, transparency and diverse perspectives circulate prevents any single bias or standpoint from going unchecked, which is what makes objective claims possible in a socially organised practice	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Realist commitment survives theory change because what is carried across revolutions is the structural content of superseded theories — their relational organisation, mathematical form and dependency patterns — rather than their full ontology	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: The pluralisation of explanation was driven by the demand for rigour itself: holding accounts answerable to actual scientific practice forced the abandonment of a single universal schema	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The account of what a term means is taken from an encyclopedia entry rather than from the literature the entry summarises. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any position attributed here to the incommensurability literature: it is reported from the Stanford Encyclopedia entry on incommensurability rather than from the primary sources that entry summarises	`limitations[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The paper reports that competing theories may have no shared standard by which to compare them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison of two theories drawn from this article: it reports the Kuhnian picture as implying	`limitations[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Carrying a result from a model to the thing modelled is stated not to be automatic, even in the easiest case. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any inference from a scientific model to its target: the article reports that even scale models are faithful only	`limitations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	One of the paper's central terms is reported to name several distinct problems rather than one. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the notion of representation as used in this article: it is reported that no single problem of representation exists and that there are instead multiple distinct issues	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concepts	scientific explanation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific explanation	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	deductive-nomological model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: deductive-nomological model	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	incommensurability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: incommensurability	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	scientific realism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific realism	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	theory change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: theory change	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
concepts	Mechanistic accounts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mechanistic accounts	`concepts[5]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	unificationist accounts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: unificationist accounts	`concepts[6]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	pragmatic accounts of explanation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pragmatic accounts of explanation	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	explanatory pluralism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explanatory pluralism	`concepts[8]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	underdetermination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: underdetermination	`concepts[9]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	Constructive empiricism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Constructive empiricism	`concepts[10]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	Structural realism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Structural realism	`concepts[11]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	empirical adequacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: empirical adequacy	`concepts[12]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	truth about unobservables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: truth about unobservables	`concepts[13]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	structural content Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: structural content	`concepts[14]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	full ontology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: full ontology	`concepts[15]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	objectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: objectivity	`concepts[16]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	elimination of all values and perspectives Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: elimination of all values and perspectives	`concepts[17]`	0.95	the paper's words
unhoused_relations	Constructive empiricism → empirical adequacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. Constructive empiricism limits theory acceptance to belief in empirical adequacy. This epistemic-standard relation is not is-a, part-of, same-as, distinct-from, contrasted-with, operationalised-as, causes, or renamed-across-fields.	`unhoused_relations[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
unhoused_relations	Structural realism → structural content Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. Structural realism identifies structural content as what may be preserved across theory change. Preservation-across-change is not is-a, part-of, same-as, distinct-from, contrasted-with, operationalised-as, causes, or renamed-across-fields.	`unhoused_relations[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	incommensurability - A CHANGED MEANING THAT THEN SPLIT IN TWO: originally lack of common measure, and later divided by philosophical discussion into conceptual and methodological incommensurability, so the word names an older idea and two newer ones at once Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	explanation - SEVERAL MODELS, EACH PRESUPPOSING A DIFFERENT IMAGE OF SCIENCE: discussion begins with lawful derivation and later adds causal, mechanistic, unificationist and pragmatic alternatives, and the article says the sequence matters because the models are not interchangeable accounts of one thing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	representation - NOT ONE PROBLEM BUT SEVERAL: the article reports that no single problem of representation exists, so a claim that a model represents its target is selective, purpose-relative and mediated by inference rather than a single relation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	Mechanistic accounts - explain through organized constitution and causal production Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Unificationist accounts - explain apparently different phenomena through a smaller set of patterns or principles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Pragmatic accounts of explanation - evaluate explanations relative to inquiry roles and explanatory interests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Explanatory pluralism - multiple models remain necessary across disciplines with different targets and methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[6]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Underdetermination - the evidence at a time may not determine which beliefs to adopt Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[7]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Constructive empiricism - accepting a theory means believing it empirically adequate, not literally true about unobservables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[8]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Structural realism - preserves realist commitment by privileging structural continuity over full ontology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[9]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Empirical adequacy - the scientific aim constructive empiricism endorses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[10]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Truth about unobservables - the aim constructive empiricism contrasts with empirical adequacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[11]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Structural content - what may survive historical theory change more reliably than ontology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[12]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Full ontology - what structural realism does not claim is reliably retained across discarded theories Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[13]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Objectivity - a disciplined communal and methodological achievement, not perspective-free access Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[14]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	Elimination of all values and perspectives - explicitly rejected as the richer meaning of objectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[15]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries on scientific realism and scientific objectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · scientific explanation —operationalised-as→ deductive-nomological model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span began at 'Quotation withheld…', dropping the subject that makes it a claim about scientific explanation at all. — strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attributed: the span reports how the SEP says modern discussion of explanation began. also in: scientific explanation · deductive-nomological model	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	scientific realism —contrasted-with→ theory change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attributed: the span reports the SEP entry's framing of the challenge from theory change. also in: scientific realism · theory change	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	empirical adequacy —distinct-from→ truth about unobservables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The article states the contrast directly with 'rather than'. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attributed: the span reports what constructive empiricism 'can hold'. also in: empirical adequacy · truth about unobservables	`concept_edges[3]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	structural content —distinct-from→ full ontology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: The article says structural content may be what survives, so the relation keeps that modal hedge at 0.7. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says structural realism SUGGESTS what science MAY preserve; hedged. also in: structural content · full ontology	`concept_edges[4]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	objectivity —distinct-from→ elimination of all values and perspectives Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The article explicitly says objectivity is not elimination of all values and perspectives, but disciplined management of their influence. also in: objectivity · elimination of all values and perspectives	`concept_edges[5]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	The article's central claim is that philosophy of science should be read not as a hunt for one timeless criterion of rationality but as the study of how explanation, empirical adequacy, objectivity, progress and ontological commitment are coordinated and contested within changing scientific practice. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Epistemic boundaries are negotiated limits. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Explanation is increasingly treated as a family of related epistemic achievements rather than one formal relation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Realism becomes selective and model-sensitive, objectivity procedural, social and critical, and progress multi-dimensional rather than simply cumulative. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Science can progress along several dimensions - empirical adequacy, explanatory reach, conceptual articulation, representational power, intervention and critical self-correction - which need not move together. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The article's twofold conclusion is that monistic images of science misdescribe the heterogeneity of its models, methods and history, and that this heterogeneity nevertheless does not license epistemic despair about scientific authority. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	If observation is never fully independent of theoretical commitments, explanation cannot be a simple one-way derivation from pure empirical givens. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The article characterises the resulting stance of the field as fallibilist without cynicism, historically informed without anti-rationalism, and pluralist without indiscriminateness. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	scientific realism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific realism	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	constructive empiricism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: constructive empiricism	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	underdetermination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: underdetermination	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	scientific objectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific objectivity	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	incommensurability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: incommensurability	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	scientific progress Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific progress	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	scientific pluralism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scientific pluralism	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	deductive-nomological model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: deductive-nomological model	`content_tags.definitions[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	syntactic view Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: syntactic view	`content_tags.definitions[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	semantic view Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic view	`content_tags.definitions[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	pragmatic view Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pragmatic view	`content_tags.definitions[11]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.