ABSTRACT
This chapter suggests that the concerns over John Dupres central cases have been unnecessarily tied to more general questions about pluralism and the boundaries between disciplines, which have ultimately served to muddy the waters. It aims to disentangle the issue of scientific imperialism from the issue of pluralism and proper disciplinary boundaries. The chapter explores the extent to which the illustrative cases provide genuine evidential support for a pluralism of the kind that Dupre advocates or for the idea of scientific imperialism. It provides a methodological critique of the use of the notion of "proper boundaries" when assessing the legitimacy of new inquiries. The chapter considers the plausibility of scientific imperialism as an explanation of why these disciplinary expansions cause disconcertion on the part of many. It also suggests that the concept of proper boundaries itself plays any significant role when attempting to determine the legitimacy or otherwise of any example of disciplinary expansion.
