Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:20:54.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fine's “Shaky Game” (And Why Noa is no Ark for Science)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Richard H. Schlagel
Richard H. Schlagel*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The primary title of this essay is derived from Arthur Fine's recent book, The Shaky Game (1986), which is a rephrasing of “risky game”, a term Einstein applied to the defenders of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, claiming that “‘most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality‘” (Fine 1986, 2). Just as Einstein's term indicates his disagreement with this standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, Fine's term is being used to express disapproval of his interpretation of the philosophy of physics of Einstein and Bohr. The subtitle forecasts my evaluation of Fine's attempt in NOA (the “Natural Ontological Attitude”) to provide a satisfactory ontological basis of scientific inquiry.

Type
Critical Notice
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 307 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bohr, N. ([1935] 1970), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, in S. Toulmin (ed.), Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics. (Originally published in Physical Review 48: 696–702.) New York: Harper & Row, pp. 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1987), The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, vols. 1–3. Reprint. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1954), Ideas and Opinions. Based on Mein Weltbild. Edited by Seelag, C. New translations and revisions by Bargmann, S. New York: Bonanza Books.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1951), The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. ([1935] 1970), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Descriptions of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, in S. Toulin (ed.), Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics. (Originally published in Physical Review 47: 777–780.) New York: Harper & Row, pp. 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1986), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Folse, H. (1985), The Philosophy of Niels Bohr: The Framework of Complimentarity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Kant, I. ([1783] 1977), Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Revised translation by Ellington, J. W. from Carus, P. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Krips, H. (1987), The Metaphysics of Quantum Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984), “A Confutation of Convergent Realism”, in J. Leplin (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 218–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdoch, D. (1987), Niels Bohr's Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, A. (1963), “The Philosophy of Niels Bohr”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 19: 8–14..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilpp, P., (ed.) (1949), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Evanston: Library of Living Philosophers.Google Scholar
Schlagel, R. (1984), “A Reasonable Reply to Hume's Skepticism”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlagel, R. (1986), Contextual Realism: A Meta-physical Framework for Modern Science. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
Schlagel, R. (1988), “Experimental Realism: A Critical Evaluation of Bas van Fraassen's. ‘Constructive Empiricism‘”, The Review of Metaphysics 41: 789–814.Google Scholar