Foundations of Science

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 339–356 | Cite as

Ontological Frameworks for Scientific Theories



A close examination of the literature on ontology may strike one with roughly two distinct senses of this word. According to the first of them, which we shall call traditional ontology, ontology is characterized as the a priori study of various “ontological categories”. In a second sense, which may be called naturalized ontology, ontology relies on our best scientific theories and from them it tries to derive the ultimate furniture of the world. From a methodological point of view these two senses of ontology are very far away. Here, we discuss a possible relationship between these senses and argue that they may be made compatible and complement each other. We also examine how logic, understood as a linguistic device dealing with the conceptual framework of a theory and its basic inference patterns must be taken into account in this kind of study. The idea guiding our proposal may be put as follows: naturalized ontology checks for the applicability of the ontological categories proposed by traditional ontology and give substantial feedback for it. The adequate expression of some of the resulting ontological frameworks may require a different logic. We conclude with a discussion of the case of orthodox quantum mechanics, arguing that this theory exemplifies the kind of relationship between the two senses of ontology. We also argue that the view proposed here may throw some light in ontological questions concerning this theory.


Ontology Ontological categories Naturalized Ontology Quantum mechanics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams R. (1979) Primitive thisness and primitive identity. Journal of Philosophy 76: 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bitbol M. (1996) Mécanique quantique: Une introduction philosophique. Flammarion, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Chateaubriand O. (2003) Quine and ontology. Principia 7(1–2): 41–74Google Scholar
  4. da Costa N. C. A. (2002) Logic and Ontology. Principia 6(2): 279–298Google Scholar
  5. da Costa N. C. A. (1997) Logiques classiques et non classiques. Essai sur les fondements de la logique. Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. da Costa N. C. A., Béziau J.-Y., Bueno O. (1995) What is semantics? A brief note on a huge question. Sorites Electronic Quarterly of Analytical Philosophy 3: 43–47Google Scholar
  7. da Costa, N. C. A., Krause, D. e Bueno, O. (2006). Paraconsistent Logic and Paraconsistency. In D. Jacquette, editor of the volume on Philosophy of Logic; D. M. Gabbay, P. Thagard and J. Woods (eds.), Philosophy of logic: In the handbook of the philosophy of science series, (vol 5, pp. 655–781). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. French S. (1998) On the withering away of physical objects. In: Castellani E. (Ed.), Interpreting bodies: Classical and quantum objects in modern physics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 93–113Google Scholar
  9. French S. (2011) Metaphysical underdetermination: Why worry?. Synthese 180(2): 205–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. French S., Krause D. (2006) Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. French S., Rickles D. (2003) Understanding permutation symmetry. In: Brading K., Castellani E. (Eds.), Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 212–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawley K. (2003) Science as a guide to metaphysics?. Synthese 149: 451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawley K. (2009) Identity and indiscernibility. Mind 118: 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krause D. (2010) Logical aspects of quantum (non-)individuality. Foundations of Science 15(1): 79–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krause D. (2011) The metaphysics of non-individuality. In: Krause D., Videira A. A. (Eds.), Brazilian studies in philosophy and history of science (290th ed., pp 257–267). Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Springer, Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krause, D., & Arenhart, J. R. B. (2010). Structures and models of scientific theories: A discussion on quantum non-individuality: pre-print available in
  17. Krause, D., Arenhart, J. R. B., & Moraes, F. T. F. (2011). Axiomatiation and models of scientific theories. Foundations of Science. doi:10.1007/s10699-011-9226-y.
  18. Ladyman J., Ross D., Spurret D., Collier J. (2007) Everything must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Ladyman J., Bigaj T. (2010) The principle of the identity of indiscernibles and quantum mechanics. Philosophy of Science 77: 117–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowe E. J. (1998) The possibility of metaphysics: Substance, identity and time. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowe E. J. (2011) The rationality of metaphysics. Synthese 178(1): 99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreland J. P. (1998) Theories of individuation: A reconsideration of bare particulars. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79: 51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muller F. A. (2011) Withering away, weakly. Synthese 180(2): 223–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muller F. A., Saunders S. (2008) Discerning fermions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59: 499–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quine W. V. (1964) From a logical point of view. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Quine W. V. (1992) Pursuit of truth, revised edition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Read S. (2006) Monism: The one true logic. In: DeVidi D., Kenyon T. (Eds.), A logical approach to philosophy: Essays in honor of Graham Solomon. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 193–209Google Scholar
  28. Rohrlich F. (1999) On the ontology of QFT. In: Cao T. Y. (Ed.), Conceptual foundations of quantum field theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–367Google Scholar
  29. van Inwagen, P. (2010). Metaphysics. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),, accessed 12 October 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fronteira Sul Federal UniversityChapecóBrazil

Personalised recommendations