A case for conservative ontology development in scientific metaphysics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4454/philinq.v10i1.295Keywords:
scientific metaphysics, representation, redundancy, ontologiesAbstract
Over the past decade, in contrast to the traditional analytic version of metaphysics, a brand of metaphysics that prioritizes collaboration and corroboration with sciences has emerged in the form of scientific metaphysics. While there has been a shift from the methodological dependence of analytic metaphysis on intuition, and conceptual analysis to the methodological preference for empirically-motivated metaphysical insights in scientific metaphysics, such a shift has not penetrated the foundational aims. Scientific metaphysics continues to probe the nature and structure of reality, much like its analytic counterpart and in this process, develops ontologies. Broadly two kinds of ontologies are furnished - global metaphysical ontologies and local scientific ontologies. In this paper, I highlight the challenges with developing such ontologies in scientific metaphysics. With Ladyman-Ross’ Information Theoretic Structural Realism as a case in point, I contest that the former suffers from representational indeterminacy and redundancy. Further, I note the possibility that eventually, local scientific ontologies might be replaced by scientific theories and in such a scenario, the former are best conceived as interim metaphysical supports for the latter.
References
Arenhart, Jonas R. B., 2017, “The received view on quantum non-individuality: formal and metaphysical analysis”, in Synthese, 194: 1323-1347.
Arenhart, Jonas R.B., and Otávio Bueno, 2015, “Structural realism and the nature of structure”, in European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5: 111-139.
Baker, David John, 2016, “The Philosophy of Quantum Field Theory”, in Oxford Handbooks Online, Oxford University Press.
Byrant, Amanda, 2020, “Keep the chickens cooped: the epistemic inadequacy of free-range metaphysics”, in Synthese, 197: 1867‑1887.
Brock, Stuart and Edwin Mares, 2007, Realism and Anti-Realism, Acumen Publishers, Durham.
Caulton, Adam, 2015, Issues of identity and individuality in quantum mechanics (Doctoral thesis), University of Cambridge, <https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/249007>.
Chakravartty, Anjan, 2010, “Metaphysics between the Sciences and Philosophies of Science”, in P.D. Magnus, J. Busch, eds., New Waves in Philosophy of Science, Palgrave MacMillan, London.
Chakravartty, Anjan, 2013, “On the Prospects of Naturalized Metaphysics” in Don Ross, James Ladyman, and Harold Kincaid, eds., Scientific Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 27-51.
Churchland, Paul, 1981, “Eliminative Materialism and Propositional Attitudes”, in The Journal of Philosophy, 78, 2: 67-90.
Coopmans, Catelijne, Janet Vertesi, Michael E. Lynch, and Steve Woolgar, eds., 2014, Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Dennett, Daniel, 1991, “Real Patterns”, in The Journal of Philosophy, 88, 1: 27-51.
Devitt, Michael, 2008, “Realism/Anti-Realism”, in Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd, eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, Routledge, London.
Dorr, Cian, 2010, “Review of James Ladyman and Don Ross, Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized”, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 6, <https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/every-thing-must-go-metaphysics-naturalized/>.
French, Steven, Décio Krause, 2006, Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Heller, Mark, 2001, “Temporal Parts of Four-Dimensional Objects” in Michael J. Loux (ed.), Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings, Psychology Press, London.
Kuhlmann, Meinard, Holger Lyre, and Andrew Wayne, 2002, Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory, World Scientific Press, Singapore.
Ladyman, James, 1998, “What is structural realism?”, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 29, 3: 409-424.
Ladyman, James and Don Ross, 2007, Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Ladyman, James, 2009, “Weak Physicalism and Special Science Ontology”, in Alexander Hieke and Hanne Leitgeb, eds., Reduction, Abstraction, Analysis, Ontos Verlag, Germany.
Ladyman, James, 2012, “Science, Metaphysics and Method”, in Philosophical Studies, 160: 31-51
Ladyman, James, 2018, “Scientific Realism Again”, in Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 9, 1: 99-107.
Ladyman, James, Don Ross, 2013, “The World in the Data”, in Don Ross, James Ladyman, and Harold Kincaid, eds., Scientific Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 108-150.
Laudan, Larry, Jarrett Leplin, 1991, “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination”, in Journal of Philosophy, 88: 449-72.
Maclaurin, James, Heather Dyke, 2012, “What is analytic metaphysics for?”, in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90, 2: 291-306.
Magnus, P.D., 2010, “Inductions, Red Herrings, and the Best Explanation for the Mixed Record of Science”, in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 61, 4: 803-819.
Melnyk, Andrew, 2013, “Can Metaphysics Be Naturalized? And If So, How?” in Don Ross, James Ladyman, Harold Kincaid, eds., Scientific Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 79-95.
Mumford, Stephen, and Matthew Tugby, 2013, “What is the Metaphysics of Science?” in S. Mumford and M. Tugby, eds., Metaphysics and Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nolan, Daniel, 2016, “Method in Analytic Metaphysics”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology, Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabo Gendler, John Hawthrone, eds., Oxford University Press, New York.
Norton, J, 2008, “Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory?”, in M. Carrier, D. Howard, and J. Kourany, eds., The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Park, Seungbae, 2019, “How to Formulate Scientific Realism and Antirealism”, in Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 50, 4: 477-488.
Peirce, Charles Sanders, 1975, Charles Sanders Peirce: Contributions to The Nation. Volume 1, ed. by K.L. Ketner and J. Cook, Texas Tech University Press, Cambridge, Lubbock.
Soto, Cristian, 2015, “The Current State of The Metaphysics of Science Debate”, in Philosophica, 90, 23-60.
Soto, Cristian, 2017, “Globally and locally applied naturalistic metaphysics”, in Manuscrito, 90, 3: 33-50.
Stanford, P. Kyle, 2001, “Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?”, in Philosophy of Science, 68, S3: s1-s12
Stanford, P. Kyle, Paul Humphreys, Katherine Hawley, James Ladyman, Don Ross, 2010, “Protecting rainforest realism”, in Metascience 19: 161-185.
Suárez, Mauricio, 2010, “Scientific Representation”, in Philosophy Compass, 5(1): 91‑101.
Thomasson, Amie L, 2007, “The Methods of Metaphysics”, in Ordinary Objects, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Thomasson, Amie L, 2012, “Research Problems and Methods in Metaphysics”, in The Continuum Companion to Metaphysics, Robert Barnard and Neil Manson, eds., Continuum International, New York.
Werndl, Charlotte, 2013, “On Choosing Between Deterministic and Indeterministic Models: Underdetermination and Indirect Evidence”, in Synthese, 190: 2243-2265.
Worrall, John, 1989, “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?”, in Dialectica, 43, 1: 99-124.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
– Authors are allowed to upload their papers immediately after publication on reserved access institutional repositories or archives required for research metrics and evaluation. Authors ought to include publication references (journal title, volume, issue and pages, article DOI when available, URL to journal website or journal issue).
Issue files are only available for download by subscription for 18 months from the date of publication. After the embargo period, the content becomes open access and is subject to the Creative Commons Generic Licence version 4.0 (cc. By 4.0). Copyright in individual articles passes to the publisher on the date of publication of the article and reverts to the authors at the end of the embargo period.
If the author wishes to request immediate Open Access publication of his/her contribution, without waiting for the end of the embargo period, a fee of EUR 500.00 will be charged. To make this type of request, please contact our administrative office (amministrazione@edizioniets.com) and the journal manager (journals@edizioniets.com), indicating: the title of the article, the details of the file to which it belongs, the details of the person to whom the invoice should be addressed, the existence of any research funding.
