Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:35:38.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural Humility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Cruz Austin Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article I discuss various humility theses about individuals and intrinsic properties as discussed by authors such as David Lewis. I argue that we should accept a similar humility thesis about the world’s space-time structure regardless of which metaphysics of space-time we accept. I argue this undercuts some important motivations opting in for an ontic structural realist metaphysic.

Type
Realism and Epistemic Humility
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 5 , December 2021 , pp. 860 - 870
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

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.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank Benjamin Jantzen and Patrick Grafton-Cardwell for discussions that lead to the writing of this article. Many of the ideas found in this article originated in discussions I had with Ben. I am especially grateful to Phillip Bricker for his invaluable feedback and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article.

References

Bricker, Phillip. 1991. “Plenitude of Possible Structures.” Journal of Philosophy 88 (11): 607–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, Phillip. 2020. Modal Matters: Essays in Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Esfeld, Michael. 2004. “Quantum Entanglement and a Metaphysics of Relations.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science B 35 (4): 601–17.Google Scholar
Esfeld, Michael, and Lam, Vincent. 2008. “Moderate Structural Realism about Space-Time.” Synthese 160 (1): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Steven. 1998. “On the Withering Away of Physical Objects.” In Interpreting Bodies: Classical and Quantum Objects in Modern Physics, ed. Castellani, Elena, 93–113. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman, and Votsis, Ionnas. 2011. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Structural Realism but Were Afraid to Ask.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (2): 227–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jantzen, Benjamin C. 2011. “No Two Entities without Identity.” Synthese 181 (3): 433–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, James. 1998. “What Is Structural Realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 29 (3): 409–24.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1983. “New Work for a Theory of Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4): 343–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David K.. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K.. 2009. “Ramseyan Humility.” In Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism, ed. Braddon-Mitchell, David and Nola, Robert, 203–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Kerry. 2013. “Priority and Particle Physics: Ontic Structural Realism as a Fundamentality Thesis.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2): 353–80.Google Scholar
McKenzie, Kerry. 2020. “Structuralism in the Idiom of Determination.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (2): 497–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Barry. 2015. A Comprehensive Course in Analysis. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar