This essay examines the underdetermination problem that plagues structuralist approaches to spacetime theories, with special emphasis placed on the epistemic brands of structuralism, whether of the scientific realist variety or not. Recent non-realist structuralist accounts, by Friedman and van Fraassen, have touted the fact that different structures can accommodate the same evidence as a virtue vis-à-vis their realist counterparts; but, as will be argued, these claims gain little traction against a properly constructed liberal version of epistemic structural realism. Overall, a (...) broad construal of spacetime theories along epistemic structural realist lines will be defended which draws upon both Friedman’s earlier work and the convergence of approximate structure over theory change, but which also challenges various claims of the ontic structural realists. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the prospects of nominalistic scientific realism and show that it fails on many counts. In section 2, I discuss what is required for NSR to get off the ground. In section 3, I question the idea that theories have well-defined nominalistic content and the idea that causal activity is a necessary condition for commitment to the reality of an entity. In section 4, I challenge the notion of nominalistic adequacy of theories.

Syntactic approaches in the philosophy of science, which are based on formalizations in predicate logic, are often considered in principle inferior to semantic approaches, which are based on formalizations with the help of structures. To compare the two kinds of approach, I identify some ambiguities in common semantic accounts and explicate the concept of a structure in a way that avoids hidden references to a specific vocabulary. From there, I argue that contrary to common opinion (i) unintended models do not (...) pose a significant problem for syntactic approaches to scientific theories, (ii) syntactic approaches can be at least as language-independent as semantic ones, and (iii) in syntactic approaches, scientific theories can be as well connected to the world as in semantic ones. Based on these results, I argue that syntactic and semantic approaches fare equally well when it comes to (iv) ease of application, (v) accommodating the use of models in the sciences, and (vi) capturing the theory-observation relation. (shrink)

I provide an explicit formulation of empirical adequacy, the central concept of constructive empiricism, and point out a number of problems. Based on one of the inspirations for empirical adequacy, I generalize the notion of a theory to avoid implausible presumptions about the relation of theoretical concepts and observations, and generalize empirical adequacy with the help of approximation sets to allow for lack of knowledge, approximations, and successive gain of knowledge and precision. As a test case, I provide an application (...) of these generalizations to a simple interference phenomenon. (shrink)

I show that the central notion of Constructive Empiricism, empirical adequacy, can be expressed syntactically and specifically in the Received View of the logical empiricists. The formalization shows that the Received View is superior to Constructive Empiricism in the treatment of theories involving constants or functions from observable to unobservable objects. It also suggests a formalization of ‘full empirical informativeness’ in Constructive Empiricism.

In this paper, a modest version of the Semantic View is motivated as both tenable and potentially fruitful for philosophy of science. An analysis is proposed in which the Semantic View is characterized by three main claims. For each of these claims, a distinction is made between stronger and more modest interpretations. It is argued that the criticisms recently leveled against the Semantic View hold only under the stronger interpretations of these claims. However, if one only commits to the modest (...) interpretation for all the claims, then the view obtained, the Modest Semantic View, is tenable and fruitful for the philosophy of science. (shrink)

Scientific representation: A long journey from pragmatics to pragmatics Content Type Journal Article DOI 10.1007/s11016-010-9465-5 Authors James Ladyman, Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, 9 Woodland Rd, Bristol, BS8 1TB UK Otávio Bueno, Department of Philosophy, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA Mauricio Suárez, Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain Bas C. van Fraassen, Philosophy Department, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA Journal Metascience Online (...) ISSN 1467-9981 Print ISSN 0815-0796. (shrink)

Halvorson argues through a series of examples and a general result due to Myers that the “semantic view” of theories has no available account of formal theoretical equivalence. De Bouvere provides criteria overlooked in Halvorson’s paper that are immune to his counterexamples and to the theorem he cites. Those criteria accord with a modest version of the semantic view that rejects some of Van Fraassen’s apparent claims while retaining the core of Patrick Suppes’s proposal. I do not endorse any version (...) of the semantic view of theories. (shrink)

In what follows, I argue that the semantic approach to scientific theories fails as a means to present the Wright—Fisher formalism (WFF) of population genetics. I offer an account of what population geneticist understand insofar as they understand the WFF, a variation on Lloyd's view that population genetics can be understood as a family of models of mid-level generality.

It has become apparent that the debate between scientific realists and constructive empiricists has come to a stalemate. Neither view can reasonably claim to be the most rational philosophy of science, exclusively capable of making sense of all scientific activities. On one prominent analysis of the situation, whether we accept a realist or an anti-realist account of science actually seems to depend on which values we antecedently accept, rather than our commitment to “rationality” per se. Accordingly, several philosophers have attempted (...) to argue in favour of scientific realism or constructive empiricism by showing that one set of values is exclusively best, for anyone and everyone, and that the downstream choice of the philosophy of science which best serves those values is therefore best, for anyone and everyone. These efforts, however, seem to have failed. In response, I suggest that philosophers of science should suspend the effort to determine which philosophy of science is best for everyone, and instead begin investigating which philosophy of science is best for specific people, with specific values, in specific contexts. I illustrate how this might be done by briefly sketching a single case study from the history of science, which seems to show that different philosophies of science are better at motivating different forms of scientific practice. (shrink)

This is the revised version of an invited keynote lecture delivered at the "1st Australian Computing and Philosophy Conference". The paper is divided into two parts. The first part defends an informational approach to structural realism. It does so in three steps. First, it is shown that, within the debate about structural realism, epistemic and ontic structural realism are reconcilable. It follows that a version of OSR is defensible from a structuralist-friendly position. Second, it is argued that a version of (...) OSR is also plausible, because not all relata are logically prior to relations. Third, it is shown that a version of OSR is also applicable to both sub-observable and observable entities, by developing its ontology of structural objects in terms of informational objects. The outcome is informational structural realism, a version of OSR supporting the ontological commitment to a view of the world as the totality of informational objects dynamically interacting with each other. The paper has been discussed by several colleagues and, in the second half, ten objections that have been moved to the proposal are answered in order to clarify it further. (shrink)

I discuss the design of the method of entropic inference as a general framework for reasoning under conditions of uncertainty. The main contribution of this discussion is to emphasize the pragmatic elements in the derivation. More specifically: (1) Probability theory is designed as the uniquely natural tool for representing states of incomplete information. (2) An epistemic notion of information is defined in terms of its relation to the Bayesian beliefs of ideally rational agents. (3) The method of updating from a (...) prior to a posterior probability distribution is designed through an eliminative induction process that singles out the logarithmic relative entropy as the unique tool for inference. The resulting framework includes as special cases both MaxEnt and Bayes’ rule. It therefore unifies entropic and Bayesian methods into a single general inference scheme. I find that similar pragmatic elements are an integral part of Putnam’s internal realism, of Floridi’s informational structural realism, and also of van Fraasen’s empiricist structuralism. I conclude with the conjecture that their valuable insights can be incorporated into a single coherent doctrine—an informational pragmatic realism. (shrink)

Ważnym elementem współczesnej dyskusji pomiędzy realizmem i antyrealizmem naukowym jest próba nadania realistycznej interpretacji historycznemu faktowi zmiany teorii w nauce. Fakt ten według L. Laudana podważa nie tylko najważniejszy argument na rzecz realizmu naukowego, ale i najważniejsze tezy tego stanowiska. Argumentem kwestionowanym przez Laudana jest twierdzenie H. Putnama, że ogromny sukces nauki w przewidywaniu zjawisk i rozwijaniu nowych technologii świadczy przynajmniej o aproksymacyjnej prawdziwości teorii naukowych. Laudan wykazuje jednak fakty z historii nauki, gdy odnoszące sukces teorie okazywały się z biegiem (...) czasu fałszywe. Powiązany z tym argument przeciwko realizmowi, zwany pesymistyczną indukcją (PI), głosi, iż skoro przeszłe teorie, które odniosły sukces, okazywały się fałszywe z perspektywy nowszych, to także obecne odnoszące sukces teorie mogą okazać się w przyszłości fałszywe. Podważa to tezę odnośnie związku sukcesu teorii z jej aproksymacyjną prawdziwością. Ważnym wyzwaniem dla realizmu naukowego staje się zatem uzgodnienie jego tez z faktem zmiany teorii w nauce. Najbardziej znaczących rozwiązań tego problemu dostarcza realizm strukturalny zaproponowany przez J. Worralla i semirealizm A. Chakrawarttiego. Oba stanowiska przyjmują tę samą strategię obrony realizmu, zwaną divide et impera, uznającą, że nie całe teorie, lecz tylko ich fragmenty bezpośrednio związane z sukcesem spełniają tezy realizmu. Realizm naukowy w tych sformułowaniach zostaje w znacznym stopniu ograniczony i osłabiony. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie tych rozwiązań i pokazanie z jednej strony realistycznych odpowiedzi na argument PI, jakich dostarczają te stanowiska, z drugiej ograniczeń, jakie z nich wynikają dla realizmu naukowego. Osłabiona wersja realizmu, jaką one proponują, również nie jest wolna od istotnych trudności, na jakie musi odpowiedzieć zarówno realizm strukturalny, jak i semirealizm. Identyfikacja tych trudności może stanowić wskazówkę dla dalszego rozwoju stanowiska realistycznego. (shrink)

Przedmiotem artykułu jest ukazanie realizmu strukturalnego jako stanowiska realistycznego w dyskusji, prowadzonej wokół realizmu naukowego – jego wybranych zalet i słabości. Realizm strukturalny jest odpowiedzią na wyzwanie, jakie realizmowi naukowemu stawiają historyczne fakty zmiany teorii w nauce. Nawiązuje on do semantycznego ujęcia teorii naukowych i wypracowanego w tym podejściu aparatu pojęciowego. Zgodnie z realizmem strukturalnym to, co zostaje zachowane z dojrzałych teorii naukowych po zmianie teorii, to ich sformułowania matematyczne, będące abstrakcyjnymi modelami teorii. Są one aproksymacyjnie prawdziwe, gdyż reprezentują realne (...) struktury rzeczywistości w sposób wolny od ontologicznej interpretacji, narzuconej przez język teorii. Realizm strukturalny i nawiązujący do niego semirealizm, który rozszerza niezmienniczość dojrzałych teorii na własności detekcyjne obiektów fizycznych, bronią tezy realizmu naukowego w kwestii aproksymacyjnej prawdziwości teorii naukowych, interpretując realistycznie zmiany teorii naukowych. Pozostawiają jednak na boku istotny dla realizmu problem reprezentowania rzeczywistości w teoriach naukowych. Oba wspomniane stanowiska, nawiązując do modelowego ujęcia teorii naukowych, przyjmują, że reprezentacja jest izomorfizmem struktur matematycznego modelu teorii i rzeczywistości. Takie rozumienie reprezentacji jest zbyt wąskie, nie uwzględnia, że struktura zjawisk nie jest jednoznacznie określona. Strukturę tę dla teorii zastępuje matematyczny model danych, który odzwierciedla zjawiska przedstawione jako związki własności określonych przez teorię. Realistyczna interpretacja modelu danych stanowi dla realizmu strukturalnego konieczne uzupełnienie, aby spełniał on naczelną tezę realizmu, głoszącą, że nauka poznaje świat taki, jaki jest niezależnie od teorii. Stanowi to podstawę, aby broniona w realizmie strukturalnym aproksymacyjna prawdziwość teorii naukowych miała ugruntowane uzasadnienie. Wskazanie potrzeby rozszerzenia realizmu strukturalnego i semirealizmu o odpowiednią dla nich koncepcję reprezentacji jest tezą tej pracy. W artykule zostały przedstawione podstawowe elementy współczesnej dyskusji wokół realizmu naukowego oraz stanowiska realizmu strukturalnego i semirealizmu jako uzgodnienie realizmu naukowego z faktem radykalnej zmiany teorii. Następnie zostały ukazane konsekwencje, jakie dla realizmu strukturalnego wynikają z semantycznego (modelowego) ujęcia teorii naukowych i związanego z tym pojęcia reprezentacji jako izomorfizmu struktur. Ostatni fragment został poświęcony wskazaniu, że aby spełnić postulaty realizmu naukowego zarówno realizm strukturalny, jak i semirealizm powinny być uzupełnione o interpretację reprezentacji rzeczywistości w modelu danych w duchu realizmu naukowego. -------------- Zgłoszono: 17/09/2020. Zrecenzowano: 12/10/2020. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 09/11/2020. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo analizamos críticamente el modo en que el Estructuralismo Empirista de van Fraassen caracteriza la relación de representación entre las teorías y los fenómenos. Nuestro objetivo es ofrecer argumentos que destaquen el papel del objeto en la construcción de modelos de datos. Asimismo, nos proponemos mostrar que la opción metodológica sugerida en su obra reciente resulta insuficiente para recuperar un vínculo plausible entre los modelos de datos y los fenómenos.

The aim of this paper is to undermine structural realism by testing the soundness of its three main theses. The first section presents the epistemic and ontic forms of structural realism. The following section defends that if scientific theories represent the structure of the world, structural realism needs a general account of representation. Representation is the crux of structural realism. Section 3 argues that structure/ontology distinction collapses. Mathematical structures are ontologyladen. Lastly, section 4 is devoted to analyse whether there is (...) a retention of mathematical structure across theory change. (shrink)

In this talk I present the main results from Anta (2021), namely, that the theoretical division between Boltzmannian and Gibbsian statistical mechanics should be understood as a separation in the epistemic capabilities of this physical discipline. In particular, while from the Boltzmannian framework one can generate powerful explanations of thermal processes by appealing to their microdynamics, from the Gibbsian framework one can predict observable values in a computationally effective way. Finally, I argue that this statistical mechanical schism contradicts the Hempelian (...) (1958) thesis that the predictive power of a scientific theory is directly proportional to its explanatory potential, and vice versa. (shrink)

This dissertation consists of three parts. Part I is a defense of an artificial language methodology in philosophy and a historical and systematic defense of the logical empiricists' application of an artificial language methodology to scientific theories. These defenses provide a justification for the presumptions of a host of criteria of empirical significance, which I analyze, compare, and develop in part II. On the basis of this analysis, in part III I use a variety of criteria to evaluate the scientific (...) status of intelligent design, and further discuss confirmation, reduction, and concept formation. (shrink)

Whitehead’s cosmology centers on the self-creation of actual occasions that perish as they come to be, but somehow do combine to constitute societies that are persistent agents and/or patients. “Instance Ontology” developed by D.W. Mertz concerns unification of relata into facts of relatedness by specific intensions. These two conceptual systems are similar in that they both avoid the substance-property distinction: they differ in their understanding of how basic units combine to constitute complex unities. “Process Structural Realism” (PSR) draws from both (...) of these approaches in developing an account of how combinations of processes may produce ontologically significant coherences. When a group of processes achieves such closure that a set of states recurs continually, the effects of that coherence differ from what would occur in the absence of that closure. Such altered effectiveness is an attribute of the system as a whole, and would have consequences. This indicates that the network of processes, as a unit, has ontological significance. The closed network of processes, together with the conditions that prevail, constitute the form of definiteness of the coherence. That form continues to obtain as long as the coherence persists. Constituents contribute to, rather than share, that characteristic. Aspects of some recent research in systems biology, microeconomics, and social psychology illustrate the application of PSR. (shrink)

Recent work on the semantic view of scientific theories is highly critical of the position. This paper identifies two common criticisms of the view, describes two popular alternatives for responding to them, and argues those responses do not suffice. Subsequently, it argues that retuning to Patrick Suppes’ interpretation of the position provides the conceptual resources for rehabilitating the semantic view.