Naming and showing: disciplinary boundaries and classification prospects

This article analyzes three central philosophical perspectives on scientific knowledge: ontological, epistemological, and pragmatic. The ontological view asserts that scientific classifications should mirror the real structure of the world and capture objective relations between phenomena. The epistemological view focuses on the justification and reliability of scientific representations, including how they are shaped through classification, regardless of whether they correspond to objective reality. The pragmatic approach emphasizes the role of external institutions - such as governments, funding agencies, and cultural or social factors - that influence how classifications are constructed, selected, and applied in scientific research. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that these three perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but rather form a complex, interrelated framework through which scientific knowledge is formed and maintained. The concept of “color” is used to illustrate this: in physics, color is defined by wavelength; in biology, by the structure and function of visual perception; and in the humanities, by cultural and symbolic meaning. This example shows how disciplinary perspectives shape the ways in which the same phenomenon is understood and how methodological diversity enhances the interpretative potential of science. The article further argues for methodological pluralism - the idea that multiple explanatory models and classification systems can and should coexist to reflect the complexity of real-world phenomena. The pragmatic dimension complements both ontological and epistemological considerations by highlighting the institutional context in which science operates. The conclusion suggests that only by integrating ontological, epistemological, and pragmatic perspectives can we construct a comprehensive and resilient model of scientific knowledge while avoiding the limitations of methodological reductionism. In addition, the article highlights the value of interdisciplinary dialogue, which enables the identification of limitations within individual paradigms and the discovery of shared conceptual ground. Methodological pluralism is presented not as a compromise, but as a conscious research strategy that accommodates the multidimensionality of phenomena and the variability of scientific contexts. This perspective is particularly relevant in today’s world, where science is increasingly expected to respond to complex societal challenges and evolving epistemic demands. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References