Determinism is a perennial topic of philosophical discussion. Very little acquaintance with the philosophical literature is needed to reveal the Tower of ...

Determinism is a rich and varied concept. At an abstract level of analysis, Jordan Howard Sobel (1998) identifies at least ninety varieties of what determinism could be like. When it comes to thinking about what deterministic laws and theories in physical sciences might be like, the situation is much clearer. There is a criterion by which to judge whether a law–expressed as some form of equation–is deterministic. A theory would then be deterministic just in case all its laws taken as (...) a whole were deterministic. In contrast, if a law fails this criterion, then it is indeterministic and any theory whose laws taken as a whole fail this criterion must also be indeterministic. Although it is widely believed that classical physics is deterministic and quantum mechanics is indeterministic, application of this criterion yields some surprises for these standard judgments. (shrink)

Is there progress in philosophy? This question is addressed along the three sections of this article. In the introductory section a comparison with similar questions which may be posed in connection to the arts and the sciences is made. A preliminary result of such comparison is that the same as in science the notion of progress in philosophy should be understood in an epistemic sense. However, if a notion of epistemic progress useful in the case of science is applied, a (...) negative conclusion concerning the existence of such progress in philosophy may be easily reached.. In fact, a usual way of arguing for such negative conclusion is to recall the lack of consensus around any proposed solution of main philosophical problems and, hence, the existence of seemingly endless controversies around them. But against such conclusion I argue that a particular notion of progress – involving conceptual or intellectual enlargement and articulation – is more appropriate to the nature of philosophy. Once such notion is adopted, consensus ceases to be a necessary condition for progress. In the second section, after defining the notion of controversial field as a set of interrelated controversies, a classification of main positions vis-a-vis philosophical controversial fields is proposed. The main distinction is between the mainstream view according to which lack of consensus and endless controversies are, to use Kant´s words, the “scandal of philosophy” and an alternative view, advocated by Russell and Rescher, who praise the controversial status of philosophy as a way of preserving the plurality of our basic value commitments. Though recognizing the merits of those views, a serious flaw affecting all of them is pointed out, namely, their lack of attention to the actual development of controversial fields. After introducing such historical focus, the differences between different types of controversial fields are described. In particular, the difference between progressive and regressive types. Moreover, the differences between different stages in the development of controversial fields such as refocusing and substitution are also described. In the last section the preceding conceptual scheme is illustrated by sketching the development of twenty century philosophy of science through its main stages and controversial fields. Finally, an answer to the question posed at the beginning is provided: it is possible to assert the existence of progress in philosophy, in the sense introduced above, but only within the limits of controversial fields. If there is also progress between controversial fields is a question that may be doubted. It is not, in any case, dealt with in this article. (shrink)

The present paper studies a specific way of addressing the question whether the laws involving the basic constituents of nature are statistical. While most German physicists, above all Planck, treated the issues of determinism and causality within a Kantian framework, the tradition which I call Vienna Indeterminism began from Mach’s reinterpretation of causality as functional dependence. This severed the bond between causality and realism because one could no longer avail oneself of a priori categories as a criterion for empirical reality. (...) Hence, an independent reality criterion had to be sought, a problem which all three physicists to be studied solved in different ways that were mainly conditioned by their different concepts of probability. In order to prevent a dissipation of intuited facts, Mach had to resort to a principle of unique determination as his reality criterion, especially when discussing the Principle of Least Action. Giving theories more independence, Boltzmann understood atomism as property reduction to precisely defined theoretical entities and their interactions. While this served as a relative reality criterion, he also advocated a constructivist one because atomism was already implied by our finitary reasoning power. Finally, Exner contemplated the idea that all apparently deterministic laws are only a macroscopic limit of an irreducible indeterminism, because by adopting the frequency interpretation, observable collectives could be considered as the real basic entities. (shrink)