Abstract

There is a growing recognition among many scientists and philosophers that metaphysical presuppositions guide scientific research. These ontological claims, in turn, prescribe a particular methodology for how to go about investigating and explaining those kinds of things. There is thus what I call a move from metaphysics to methods. Using cancer research as a case study, I defend the existence of this move, and I argue for an “agnostic” attitude towards the metaphysical presuppositions guiding cancer research. I defend this agnosticism on two grounds: first, the underdetermination of metaphysical frameworks by empirical research, and second, on the ground of inductive risk, namely that when it comes to cancer research, there are more than just epistemic consequences for making the wrong metaphysical choice. I conclude that one should instead allow for a pluralism of metaphysical frameworks to guide cancer research.