ABSTRACT
Throughout the history of science, indeed throughout the history of knowledge, unification has been touted as a central aim of intellectual inquiry. We have always wanted to discover as many facts about the universe as possible; but, at the same time, we have wanted to understand how such facts are linked and interrelated. Much time and effort have been spent trying to show that diverse arrays of things can be seen as different manifestations of some common underlying entities or properties. Thales is said to have originated philosophy and science with his declaration that everything was, at base, a form of water. Plato’s theory of the forms was thought to be a magnificent accomplishment because it gave a unified solution to the separate problems of the relation between knowledge and belief, the grounding of objective values, and how continuity is possible amid change. Pasteur made numerous medical advancements possible by demonstrating the interconnection between micro-organisms and human disease symptoms. Many technological advances were aided by Maxwell’s showing that light is a kind of electromagnetic radiation. The attempt to unify the various known forces is often referred to as “the holy grail” of physics. Some philosophers have even suggested that providing explanations is itself a sort of unification. The idea of unifying our knowledge through science has sometimes taken on social, cultural, and political overtones as well. The logical positivists believed that a unified scientific approach to knowledge could help save people from a multitude of local irrationalities. The notion that unity has political or cultural overtones has also been part of the thinking of recent advocates for the disunity of science, who believe that pressures for unity can smother scientific creativity, stifle dissenting views, and prevent us from noticing important diversities. But while “unification” (like “simplicity”) has often been hailed as central to science, the meaning of the term is not altogether clear. Scientists often do not specify what, precisely, they mean by unification. And in cases where what they mean is clear, different thinkers plainly mean different things by the term. What are the various senses of “unification” and why has unification been such an important aim in the history of inquiry?
