Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:05:34.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a Compelling Argument for Ontic Structural Realism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Matteo Morganti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Structural realism first emerged as an epistemological thesis aimed to avoid the so-called pessimistic metainduction on the history of science. Some authors, however, have suggested that the preservation of structure across theory change is best explained by endorsing the metaphysical thesis that structure is all there is. Although the possibility of this latter, ‘ontic’ form of structural realism has been extensively debated, not much has been said concerning its justification. In this article, I distinguish between two arguments in favor of ontic structural realism that can be reconstructed from the literature and find both of them wanting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1165 - 1176
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Cao, Tian Y. 2003. “Structural Realism and the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory.” Synthese 136:3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellani, Elena. 1998. “Galilean Particles: An Example of Constitution of Objects.” In Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, ed. Castellani, Elena, 181–94. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2003. “The Structuralist Conception of Objects.” Philosophy of Science 70:867–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esfeld, Michael, and Lam, Vincent. 2008. “Moderate Structural Realism about Space-Time.” Synthese 160:27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven. 1999. “Models and Mathematics in Physics: The Role of Group Theory.” In From Physics to Philosophy, ed. Butterfield, Jeremy and Pagonis, Constantine C., 187–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven. 2000. “The Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Partial Structures and the Application of Group Theory to Physics.” Synthese 125:103–20.Google Scholar
French, Steven. 2003. “Scribbling on the Blank Sheet: Eddington's Structuralist Conception of Objects.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34:227–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven. 2006. “Structure as a Weapon of the Realist.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106:167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven, and Ladyman, James. 2003. “Remodelling Structural Realism: Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of Structure.” Synthese 136:31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantorovich, Aharon. 2003. “The Priority of Internal Symmetries in Particle Physics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34:651–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, Harold. 2008. “Structural Realism and the Special Sciences.” Philosophy of Science 75:720–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, James. 1998. “What Is Structural Realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29:409–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, James. 2009. “Structural Realism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/structural-realism/.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Ross, Don, with Spurrett, David and Collier, John. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48:19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyre, Holger. 2004. “Holism and Structuralism in U(1) Gauge Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35:643–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, Donald W. 2003. “An Instance Ontology for Structures: Their Definition, Identity, and Indiscernibility.” Metaphysica 4:127–64.Google Scholar
Morganti, Matteo. 2004. “On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism.” Synthese 142:81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morganti, Matteo. 2009. “Inherent Properties and Statistics with Individual Particles in Quantum Mechanics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40:223–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Fred A. 2011. “Whithering Away, Weakly.” Synthese 180:223–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Fred A., and Saunders, Simon. 2008. “Discerning Fermions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59:499–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Fred A., and Seevinck, Michael P.. 2009. “Discerning Elementary Particles.” Philosophy of Science 76:179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, Henry. 1905/1952. Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. Mathematics, Matter, and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Don. 2008. “Ontic Structural Realism and Economics.” Philosophy of Science 75:731–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saatsi, Juha. 2010. “Whence Ontic Structural Realism?” In EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, ed. Suárez, Maricio, Dorato, Mauro, and Rédei, Miklós, 255–66. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Saunders, Simon. 2006. “Are Quantum Particles Objects?” Analysis 66:52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tegmark, Max. 2007. “The Mathematical Universe.” Foundations of Physics 38:101–50.Google Scholar
Worrall, John. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43:99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar