Discussions about perspectivism in the current philosophical literature often focus on questions concerning perspectival modeling or the compatibility between perspectivism and realism. In this paper, I propose to extend the debate on perspectivism by taking into account the social dimension of scientific perspectives. Scientific perspectives are always adopted and advocated for by individual scientists and groups of scientists with different epistemic affinities. I describe an example of a current and ongoing controversy in the field of epigenetics in order to illustrate that diverging scientific perspectives on open scientific questions are often not fully explained by empirical underdetermination or diverging theoretical approaches alone. Opposing perspectives frequently arise from differences in systems of practice and the scientific socializations of the involved scientists, including differences in training, experimental skills, and epistemic priorities. The paper ends with a discussion of the important epistemic function of perspectives in scientific discovery. Ultimately, perspectivism is described as a valid philosophical position that explains how scientific knowledge is generated in situations of empirical underdetermination and why trust in science can be justified even in the absence of a community consensus.

中文翻译：

---

当前表观遗传学中的透视主义

当前哲学文献中关于透视主义的讨论通常集中在关于透视模型或透视主义与现实主义之间兼容性的问题上。在本文中，我建议通过考虑科学观点的社会层面来扩大关于透视主义的辩论。科学观点总是被具有不同认知亲和力的单个科学家和一组科学家所采纳和提倡的。我描述一个表观遗传学领域当前和正在进行的争论的例子，以说明对开放科学问题的不同科学观点通常不能通过经验不足的确定或仅通过理论方法来完全解释。反对意见经常来自实践体系的差异和所涉科学家的科学社会化，包括培训，实验技能和认识论重点的差异。本文最后讨论了观点在科学发现中的重要认识功能。归根结底，透视主义被描述为一种有效的哲学立场，它解释了在经验不足的情况下如何产生科学知识，以及为什么即使没有社区共识也可以证明对科学的信任。