Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Ontology relativized: Reply to Moulines

Abstract

Ontology is taken by Moulines as supervenient on science: what kinds of things there are is determined by our well-confirmed theories. But the fact is that today, science provides us with a multiplicity of well-confirmed theories, each having its own ontological commitments. The modest, ontological form of reduction advocated by Moulines (this volume) restores hope of putting some ontological order in the “huge chaotic supermarket of science”. In this paper I show that any claim on the amount of order obtained by reduction does not only always remain “temporally qualified” but, worse for the reductionist with a taste for ontological order, that the very notion of orderliness must be relativized to the capacities and interests of knowers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Carnap R. (1955). Logical foundations of the unity of science. In: Neurath O., Morris C., Carnap R. (eds) International encyclopedia of unified science, 2 vols. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  2. Cartwright N. (1999). The dappled world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  3. Dupré J. (1993). The disorder of things. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass

  4. Moulines C.U. (2000). Ontologie, réduction et unité des sciences. Philosophie 68:3–15

  5. Moulines C.U. (2001). Ontology, reduction and the unity of science. In: Tinn Yu Cao (eds) The proceedings of the twentieth world congress of philosophy (pp. 19–27), Vol. 10. Philosophy Documentation Center, Bowling Green

  6. Nagel E. (1979). The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis

  7. Ruphy S. (2003). Is the world really “Dappled”? a response to Cartwright’s charge against “Cross-wise reduction”. Philosophy of Science 70:57–67

  8. Sklar L. (1985). Philosophy and spacetime physics. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Stéphanie Ruphy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruphy, S. Ontology relativized: Reply to Moulines. Synthese 151, 325–330 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9012-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ontology
  • Order
  • Reductionism
  • Semantic view of theories
  • Supervenience
  • Unity of science