Chapter 5

Scientific Knowledge and Explanation in Mutual Exclusivity

Introduction

The theory of Mutual Exclusivity, with its pluralistic metaphysics of ontologically isolated domains, has far-reaching implications for the philosophy of science. Traditionally, science is conceived as a unified enterprise aiming to uncover the laws and structures of a singular, objective reality. However, Mutual Exclusivity challenges this assumption by positing that reality consists of multiple, mutually exclusive, self-contained, instantiated domains, each with its own internal ontology and modes of being. This section examines how this framework reconfigures scientific knowledge and explanation, focusing on the domain-specific nature of scientific inquiry, the plurality of scientific truths, and the limits of scientific universality.

Domain-Specific Scientific Inquiry

In Mutual Exclusivity, scientific knowledge is inherently domain-specific. Each domain constitutes a distinct reality, complete with its own laws, entities, and causal structures, and scientific inquiry operates within the boundaries of a given domain. For example, a domain governed by Newtonian physics supports investigations into mass, force, and motion, while a domain of quantum mechanics accommodates probabilistic events and wave-particle duality. These domains do not share a common framework; their scientific descriptions are mutually exclusive, reflecting their ontological isolation.

This domain-specificity implies that scientific methods and theories are tailored to the internal conditions of each domain. What counts as evidence, explanation, or a valid law in one domain may be incoherent or inapplicable in another. Consequently, the practice of science becomes a localized endeavor, with no presumption that findings in one domain can be extrapolated to others. This challenges the traditional view of science as a cumulative, universal project, reframing it as a collection of independent inquiries tied to distinct realities.

The Plurality of Scientific Truths

Mutual Exclusivity introduces a plurality of scientific truths, where what is true is relative to the domain in which it is established. In classical philosophy of science, truth is often seen as correspondence to an independent, singular reality—a goal that unifies disparate scientific disciplines. However, under Mutual Exclusivity, there is no singular phenomenal reality to serve as a common referent. Each domain sustains its own truths, determined by its internal ontology and validated within its own epistemic framework.

For instance, the statement “light travels in straight lines” might hold true in a domain aligned with classical optics, while “light exhibits wave-particle duality” is true in a quantum domain. These truths do not compete or contradict each other, as they pertain to separate realities with no shared context. This plurality undermines scientific realism, which posits that science progressively approximates a single, objective truth. Instead, Mutual Exclusivity suggests that scientific truths are multiple, each fully legitimate within its respective domain, with no overarching standard to reconcile them.

Limits of Scientific Universality

The rejection of a universal ontology in Mutual Exclusivity imposes limits on scientific universality. Traditional science assumes that fundamental laws—such as those of physics or chemistry—apply across all contexts, forming a coherent, interconnected system. In contrast, Mutual Exclusivity asserts that no such system exists; laws and principles are confined to their originating domains and lack trans-domain validity. A law of gravitation, for example, governs only those domains where mass and spatial relations are instantiated, and it has no bearing on domains of pure abstraction or alternative physicalities.

This limitation challenges the ambition of a “theory of everything” that unifies all scientific knowledge. In Mutual Exclusivity, no theory can bridge the ontological gaps between domains, as each operates independently with its own complete explanatory structure. Nevertheless, the theory redefines ontology as the study of acknowledgeable correspondences and analogies between phenomena across diverse domains—thereby seeking to uncover the structural similarities and shared patterns that emerge in seemingly disparate fields. As such, scientific universality is replaced by a mosaic of domain-specific understandings, each sufficient unto itself; and universals are redefined not as fixed, timeless truths, but as recurrent features across domains. This shift raises questions about the scope and purpose of scientific explanation: can science claim to describe “reality” as a whole, or only the particular reality of a given domain along with the correspondences and analogies between diverse domains?

The Nature of Explanation in Isolated Domains

The concept of explanation in science is similarly transformed. In classical philosophy of science, explanations often rely on reductive or causal models that presume a consistent reality—e.g., deducing phenomena from general laws or tracing effects back to prior conditions. Mutual Exclusivity, however, confines explanations to the internal logic of each domain, rejecting any appeal to external or universal principles. An explanation is valid only within the domain it addresses, shaped by that domain’s ontology and epistemic rules.

Consider a domain where causality operates linearly versus one where it is absent or cyclical. In the former, a scientific explanation might invoke a cause-effect chain (e.g., “The collision caused the acceleration”), while in the latter, it might rely on patterns or relations without temporal precedence. Neither explanation transcends its domain; they are mutually exclusive, reflecting the isolation of their respective realities. This relativity of explanation challenges the notion of a “better” or “truer” account across domains, as no meta-perspective exists to compare them.

Science and Metaphysics: A Reflexive Relationship

Mutual Exclusivity also reconfigures the interplay between science and metaphysics. Traditionally, science is seen as either informing metaphysical theories (e.g., physicalism) or operating independently of them. In a pluralistic framework, however, science is itself a metaphysical artifact—its methods, assumptions, and findings are expressions of the domain it inhabits. A domain’s ontology determines what counts as “scientific” within it, from empirical observation to mathematical formalism, rendering science a localized practice rather than a universal enterprise.

This reflexivity raises a critical question: does science describe a domain’s reality, or does it construct it by imposing epistemic constraints? For instance, the success of experimentation in a physical domain might reflect that domain’s amenability to such methods, not an intrinsic superiority of empiricism. In another domain, abstract deduction might dominate. Mutual Exclusivity thus invites a comparative philosophy of science, where the diversity of scientific practices mirrors the plurality of metaphysical realities, and no single methodology holds privileged status.

Implications for Scientific Realism and Objectivity

The pluralistic ontology of Mutual Exclusivity has profound implications for scientific realism and objectivity. Realism, which asserts that science uncovers an independent reality, falters when reality itself fragments into disconnected domains. What is “real” in one domain—say, subatomic particles—may have no counterpart in another, rendering scientific truths relative rather than absolute. Objectivity, too, becomes domain-bound; it is not a transcendence of perspective but a consistency within a domain’s epistemic framework.

This does not entail relativism in the pejorative sense, where all claims are equally valid. Within a domain, rigorous standards of evidence and coherence apply. However, these standards are internal, not universal, challenging the notion that science speaks to a single, objective world. The scientist’s task shifts from unveiling a monolithic reality to navigating and articulating the specific reality of their domain.

Implications for the Philosophy of Science

The reconfiguration of scientific knowledge and explanation in Mutual Exclusivity transforms the philosophy of science. Rather than seeking a unified account of how science reveals the world, the discipline must grapple with a multiplicity of sciences, each tied to a distinct domain. This invites a comparative approach—analyzing how different domains generate knowledge and what counts as explanation within them. It also prompts reflexive inquiry: does the philosophy of science itself presuppose a domain, and if so, how does this shape its claims?

In conclusion, Mutual Exclusivity redefines scientific knowledge as domain-specific, scientific truths as plural, and scientific universality as unattainable, dismantling the traditional image of science as a monolithic pursuit of a singular reality. This pluralistic perspective not only challenges foundational assumptions in the philosophy of science but also opens new avenues for exploring the diversity of scientific practices across isolated domains. The next chapter will delve into the ethical and practical implications of Mutual Exclusivity, examining how its metaphysical and epistemological commitments influence concepts of value, agency, responsibility, moral reasoning, decision-making, and social interaction in a fragmented ontological landscape.