Structural realists of nearly all stripes endorse the structural continuity claim. Roughly speaking, this is the claim that the structure of successful scientific theories survives theory change because it has latched on to the structure of the world. In this paper I elaborate, elucidate and modify the structural continuity claim and its associated argument. I do so without presupposing a particular conception of structure that favours this or that kind of structural realism. Instead I focus on how structural realists can (...) best account for the neutrally formulated historical facts. The result, I hope, crystallises some of the shared commitments, desiderata and limits of structural realists. (shrink)

Structural realism was born in the attempt to reach a compromise between a realist argument and an antirealist one, namely the ‘no miracle’ ­argument and the ‘pessimistic meta-induction’, respectively. According to the ‘no miracle’ argument, scientific realism is the only philosophy that does not make the success of science a miracle. The only way of explaining why science is so ­successful in making predictions that most of the time turn out to be verified, is to believe that theoretical terms refer, (...) that theories in mature science are true or at least approximately true, and that the same term refers to the same thing even if it occurs in different theories. It is the referential nature of scientific theories that explains the success of science. (shrink)

In this paper we argue that quantum mechanics provides a genuine kind of structural explanations of quantum phenomena. Since structural explanations only rely on the formal properties of the theory, they have the advantage of being independent of interpretative questions. As such, they can be used to claim that, even in the current absence of one agreed-upon interpretation, quantum mechanics is capable of providing satisfactory explanations of physical phenomena. While our proposal clearly cannot be taken to solve all interpretive issues (...) raised by quantum theory, we will argue that it can be successfully applied to some of its most puzzling phenomena, such Heisenberg's uncertainty relations and quantum non-locality. The discussion of these two case studies will also serve to illustrate the main properties of structural explanations and compare them to the DN and the unificationist models. Finally, we briefly discuss how structural explanations might relate to structural realism. (shrink)

We describe the state of the Talmudic Logic project as of end of 2019. The Talmud is the most comprehensive and fundamental work of Jewish religious law, employing a large number of logical components centuries ahead of their time. In many cases the basic principles are not explicitly formulated, which makes it difficult to formalize and make available to the modern student of Logic. This project on Talmudic Logic, aims to present logical analysis of Talmudic reasoning using modern logical tools. (...) We investigate principles of Talmudic Logic and publish a series of books, one book or more for each principle. The series begins with the systematic analysis of Talmudic inference rules. The first book shows that we can present Talmudic reasoning intuitions as a systematic logical system basic to modern non-deductive reasoning, such as Argumentum A Fortiori, Abduction and Analogy. The second book offers a systematic common sense method for intuitively defining sets and claims that this method adequately models the Talmudic use of the rules Klal uPrat. These books also criticize modern Talmudic research methodology. Later books deal with additional topics like Deontic logic, and Temporal logic, Agency and processes in the Talmud and more. The aims of the project are two fold: 1. To import into the Talmudic study modern logical methods with a view to help understand complicated Talmudic passages, which otherwise cannot be addressed. 2. To export from the Talmud new logical principles which are innovative and useful to modern contemporary logic. (shrink)

Robert Alexy has built his original theory of law upon pervasive claims for “necessary” features of law. In this article, I show that Alexy's claims suffer from two difficulties. First, Alexy is never clear about what he means by “necessity.” Second, Alexy writes as if there have been no challenges to claims of conceptual necessity. There have been such challenges and Alexy needs to answer them if his project is to succeed.

Epistemic structural realists have argued that we are in a better epistemic position with respect to the structural claims made by our theories than the non-structural claims. Critics have objected that we cannot make the structure/non-structure distinction precise. I respond that a focus on mathematical structure leads to a clearer understanding of this debate. Unfortunately for the structural realist, however, the contribution that mathematics makes to scientific representation undermines any general confidence we might have in the structural claims made by (...) our theories. Thinking about the role of mathematics in science may also complicate other versions of realism. (shrink)