Inevitability, contingency, and epistemic humility.

This paper offers an epistemological framework for the debate about whether the results of scientific enquiry are inevitable or contingent. I argue in Sections 2 and 3 that inevitabilist stances are doubly guilty of epistemic hubris--a lack of epistemic humility--and that the real question concerns the scope and strength of our contingentism. The latter stages of the paper-Sections 4 and 5-address some epistemological and historiographical worries and sketch some examples of deep contingencies to guide further debate. I conclude by affirming that the concept of epistemic humility can usefully inform critical reflection on the contingency of the sciences and the practice of history of science.