Turner [The past vs. the tiny: Historical science and the abductive arguments for realism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35A 1] claims that the arguments in favor of realism do not support with the same force both classes of realism, since they supply stronger reasons for experimental realism than for historical realism. I would like to make two comments, which should be seen as amplifications inspired by his proposal, rather than as a criticism. First, it is important to (...) highlight that Turner’s distinction between ‘tiny’ and ‘past unobservables’ is neither excluding nor exhaustive. Second, even if we agreed with everything that Turner says regarding the arguments for realism and their relative weight in order to justify the experimental or historical version, there is an aspect that Turner does not consider and that renders historical realism less problematic than experimental realism.Keywords: Scientific realism; Derek Turner; Rom Harré; Historical science; Ian Hacking. (shrink)

RESUMEN La postulación de la existencia de receptores bioquímicos permite brindar una explicación satisfactoria para muchos procesos biológicos a nivel celular, como, por ejemplo, el mecanismo de acción de la mayoría de las drogas de acción específica. No obstante, el concepto de receptor fue considerado durante mucho tiempo como carente de referente objetivo, e incluso avanzada la segunda mitad del siglo XX aún existía escepticismo acerca de su existencia. A partir del debate filosófico entre realistas y antirrealistas científicos, indagaremos si (...) la cuestión del realismo permite arrojar luz sobre la historia del concepto de receptor bioquímico. Evaluaremos qué posiciones particulares en el marco del debate permiten comprender tanto la evolución del concepto de receptor como la práctica científica sobre los receptores. Argumentaremos que el caso de los receptores puede ser elucidado aceptando un realismo científico de entidades que considera la manipulabilidad como criterio de existencia -siguiendo a Ian Hacking-. Guiará nuestro trabajo una pregunta estrictamente filosófica: ¿existen los receptores bioquímicos? ABSTRACT The postulation of the existence of biochemical receptors provides a satisfactory explanation for many biological processes at the cellular level, such as the mechanisms of action of most drugs with specific action. However, the concept of receptor was long considered as lacking an objective referent, and even into the second half of the 20th century, there was still skepticism about its existence. By means of the philosophical debate between scientific realists and anti-realists, we will investigate whether the question of realism can shed light on the history of the concept of biochemical receptor. We will evaluate which particular positions within the debate allow us to understand both the evolution of the concept of receptor and the scientific practice on receptors. We will argue that the case of receptors can be elucidated by accepting a scientific realism of entities, which considers manipulability as a criterion of existence -following Ian Hacking-. Our work will be guided by a strictly philosophical query: Do biochemical receptors exist? (shrink)

Mereology is the logic of part—whole concepts as they are used in many different contexts. The old chemical metaphysics of atoms and molecules seems to fit classical mereology very well. However, when functional attributes are added to part specifications and quantum mechanical considerations are also added, the rules of classical mereology are breached in chemical discourses. A set theoretical alternative mereology is also found wanting. Molecular orbital theory requires a metaphysics of affordances that also stands outside classical mereology.

Carman argues, in ‘The electrons of the dinosaurs and the center of the Earth’, that we may have more reason to be realists about dinosaurs than about electrons, because there are plenty of observable analogues for dinosaurs but not for electrons. These observable analogues severely restrict the range of plausible ontologies, thus reducing the threat of underdetermination. In response to this argument, I show that the observable analogues for ancient organisms are a mixed epistemic blessing at best, and I discuss (...) some cases from the history of paleontology in which the observable analogues—ducks, shrimp, and lizards—have led scientists into persisting error. I also give reasons for thinking that underdetermination will be just as serious a problem in historical as in experimental science. I conclude that Carman has not succeeded in showing that dinosaurs ‘come off better’ than electrons.Keywords: Paleontology; Pessimistic induction; Realism; Unobservables. (shrink)