Must Structural Realism Cover the Special Sciences?

Conference paper
Part of the The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings book series (EPSP, volume 2)


Structural Realism (SR) is typically rated as a moderate realist doctrine about the ultimate entities of nature described by fundamental physics. Whether it must be extended to the higher-level special sciences is not so clear. In this short paper I argue that there is no need to ‘structuralize’ the special sciences. By mounting concrete examples I show that structural descriptions and structural laws certainly play a role in the special sciences, but that they don’t play any exclusive role nor that they give us any reason to believe that all that there is on the various levels is structure. I fortify my points by arguing that structures are global entities (in order for SR not to collapse into a bundle ontology) and that the assumption of higher-level structures as genuinely global or holistic entities is even more arcane.


Harmonic Oscillator Structural Realism Special Science Bottom Level Ontic Structural Realism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Dennett, D. (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 88(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Esfeld, M. (2012). Causal realism. In D. Dieks et al. (Eds.), Probabilities, laws, and structures (pp. 157–168). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. French, S. (2011). Shifting to structures in biology and beyond: A prophylactic for promiscuous realism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. French, S. (2012). The resilience of laws and the ephemerality of objects: Can a form of structuralism be extended to Biology? In D. Dieks et al. (Eds.), Probabilities, laws, and structures (pp. 187–199). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frigg, R., & Votsis, I. (2011). Everything you always wanted to know about structural realism but were afraid to ask. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 227–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kincaid, H. (2008). Structural realism and the social sciences. Philosophy of Science, 75, 720–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Everything must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lyre, H. (2009). The “multirealization” of multiple realizability. In A. Hieke & H. Leitgeb (Eds.), Reduction – Abstraction – Analysis (pp. 79–94). Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  10. Lyre, H. (2010). Humean perspectives on structural realism. In F. Stadler (Ed.), The present situation in the philosophy of science (pp. 381–397). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lyre, H. (2012). Structural invariants, structural kinds, structural laws. In D. Dieks et al. (Eds.), Probabilities, laws, and structures (pp. 179–191). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Ross, D. (2008). Ontic structural realism and economics. Philosophy of Science, 75, 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations