The contingentist/inevitabilist debate contests whether the results of successful science are contingent or inevitable. This article addresses lingering ambiguity in the way contingency is defined in this debate. I argue that contingency in science can be understood as a collection of distinct concepts, distinguished by how they hold science contingent, by what elements of science they hold contingent, and by what those elements are contingent upon. I present a preliminary taxonomy designed to characterize the full-range positions available and illustrate that these constitute a diverse array rather than a spectrum.
Martin, J. D. (2013). Is the Contingentist/Inevitabilist Debate a Matter of Degrees?. Philosophy of Science, 80(5), 919-930. https://doi.org/10.1086/674003