Does Scientific Progress Necessarily Lead to a Unified Science?

  • C. Ulises MoulinesEmail author
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 18)


Neurath was one of the most conspicuous champions of the ideal of a unified science in the twentieth century. This ideal continues to influence the work of many scientists and some philosophers. However, it is not clear what precise sense should be given to the phrase “unification of science”. Different explications of it are possible. In this paper, I examine the notion of theoretical unification, which seems to me the most significant kind of unification. After having provided a formal explication of theoretical unification in terms of the notions of embedding and fundamental theory, I go on to consider what the prospects are for attaining the goal of theoretical unification, both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective.


Fundamental Theory Ontological Commitment Empirical Science Empirical Content Empirical Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U., Sneed, J. D. (1987). An Architectonic for Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Balzer, W., Sneed, J. D., Moulines, C. U. (2000). Structuralist knowledge representation. Paradigmatic Examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  3. Niebergall, K. G. (2002). Structuralism, model theory and reduction, Synthese 130(1), 135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Seife, Ch. (2005). Can the laws of physics be unified? Science 309, 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sklar, L. (1992). Philosophy of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seminar für Philosophie, Logik und WissenschaftstheorieUniversität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations