Advertisement

Humean Perspectives on Structural Realism

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective book series (PSEP, volume 1)

Abstract

Structural Realism (SR) is a moderate variant of scientific realism and can roughly be captured by the idea that we should be committed to the structural rather than object-like content of our best current scientific theories. A quick view on the list of some of the main proponents shows that SR is basically a European philosophy of science movement (and just suits our ESF Programme): John Worrall, Ioannis Votsis, Steven French, Angelo Cei, James Ladyman, Simon Saunders, Michael Esfeld, Vincent Lam, Katherine Brading, Mauro Dorato, Dean Rickles, Fred Muller, and – exceptions prove the rule – Anjan Chakravartty and John Stachel. The list is of course not exhaustive, moreover, the debate has a broad periphery. A notable example of this is Bas van Fraassen’s structural empiricism. The paper is a kind of opinionated review paper. In what follows I will pass through the most prevailing topics in recent debates over SR. My discussion will be organised, perhaps a bit unorthodoxly, in short sections, here and then I will outline my own views.

Keywords

Structural Realism Causal Power Theoretical Term Ontic Structural Realism Humean Perspective 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Tian Yu Cao (2003). Structural realism and the interpretation of quantum field theory. Synthese 136: 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelo Cei and Steven French (2006). Looking for structure in all the wrong places: Ramsey sentences, multiple realizability, and structure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 633–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anjan Chakravartty (2004). Structuralism as a form of scientific realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2 & 3): 151-171.Google Scholar
  4. Anjan Chakravartty (2007). A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. William Demopoulos and Michael Friedman (1985). Critical notice: Bertrand Russell’s The Analysis of Matter: Its historical context and contemporary interest. Philosophy of Science 52: 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mauro Dorato (2000). Substantivalism, relationism and structural spacetime realism. Foundations of Physics 30(10): 1605-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Phil Dowe (2000). Physical Causation. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Michael Esfeld (2004). Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35(4): 601-617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Michael Esfeld (in print). The modal nature of structures in ontic structural realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  10. Michael Esfeld and Vincent Lam (2008). Moderate structural realism about spacetime. Synthese 160: 27-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bas van Fraassen (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Steven French (1989). Identity and individuality in classical and quantum physics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67: 432–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Steven French (1998). On the withering away of physical objects. In Elena Castellani (ed.): Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, pp. 93–113. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Steven French and James Ladyman (2003a). Remodelling structural realism: Quantum physics and the metaphysics of structure. Synthese 136: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steven French and James Ladyman (2003b). Between platonism and phenomenalism: Reply to Cao. Synthese 136: 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steven French (2006). Structure as a weapon of the realist. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106: 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richard Healey (2007). Gauging What’s Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Gauge Theories. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. James Ladyman and Don Ross (with David Spurrett and John Collier) (2007). Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rae Langton (1998). Kantian Humility: Our Ignorance of Things in Themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. David Lewis (1970). How to define theoretical terms. Journal of Philosophy 67: 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. David Lewis (1986). Philosophical Papers Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. David Lewis (2009). Ramseyan Humility. In David Braddon-Mitchell and Robert Nola (eds.): Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Holger Lyre (2004a). Lokale Symmetrien und Wirklichkeit. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  24. Holger Lyre (2004b). Holism and structuralism in U(1) gauge theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35(4): 643-670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holger Lyre (2009). Structural realism and abductive-transcendental arguments. In Michel Bitbol, Pierre Kerszberg and Jean Petitot (eds.): Constituting Objectivity. Transcendental Perspectives on Modern Physics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Holger Lyre (in print). Is structural underdetermination possible? Synthese.Google Scholar
  27. Tim Maudlin (2007): The Metaphysics Within Physics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fred Muller (1998). Structures for Everyone. Amsterdam: Gerits & Son. Fred Muller (in print). Withering away, weakly. Synthese.Google Scholar
  29. Max Newman (1928). Mr. Russell’s “Causal Theory of Perception”. Mind 37(146): 137-148.Google Scholar
  30. Willard V. O. Quine (1976). Grades of discriminability. Journal of Philosophy 73(5): 113-116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michael Redhead (2001). The intelligibility of the universe. In: Anthony O’Hear (ed.): Philosophy at the New Millennium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Dean Rickles, Steven French and Juha Saatsi (2006). The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Bertrand Russell (1927). The Analysis of Matter. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Simon Saunders (2003). Structural realism again. Synthese 136: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon Saunders (2006). Are quantum particles objects? Analysis 66: 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonathan Schaffer (2005). Quiddistic knowledge. Philosophical Studies 123: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stewart Shapiro (2000). Thinking about Mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Georg Sparber (2009). Unorthodox Humeanism. Frankfurt a.M.: Ontos.Google Scholar
  39. John Stachel (2002). The relations between things versus the things between relations: The deeper meaning of the hole argument. In: David Malament (ed.): Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  40. Ioannis Votsis (2003). Is structure not enough? Philosophy of Science 70: 879– 890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. John Worrall (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica 43: 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options