David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13 (1):5 – 16 (1999)
In this article I subject to criticism Field's argument, according to which field theory takes space-time to be substance since it ascribes field properties to space-time points. There is petitio principii error made in this reasoning because Field does not give any justification for his controversial assumption that fields are properties of space-time points. What is more, I suggest, Field's interpretation of field theory is incompatible with the way this theory is understood and utilized by its users, namely scientists. My criticism is based on the assumption that one cannot propose an ontology of a given scientific theory, at the same time imposing on it an interpretation which clashes with the interpretation current among its users. I also suggest that in order to establish the ontology of a scientific theory one should also take into account the way it has been constructed. According to this criterion, field theory does indeed take space-time to be a substance.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Hartry Field (1989). Realism, Mathematics & Modality. Basil Blackwell.
W. V. Quine (1976). The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays. Harvard University Press.
Hartry Field (1980). Science Without Numbers. Princeton University Press.
John Earman & John Norton (1987). What Price Spacetime Substantivalism? The Hole Story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (4):515-525.
Citations of this work BETA
Jerzy Gołosz (2005). Structural Essentialism and Determinism. Erkenntnis 63 (1):73 - 100.
Jerzy Gołosz (2005). Structural Essentialism and Determinism. Erkenntnis 63 (1):73-100.
Similar books and articles
Nick Huggett & Robert Weingard (1994). Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory. Philosophy of Science 61 (3):370-388.
Brent Mundy (1989). Distant Action in Classical Electromagnetic Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (1):39-68.
Tim Maudlin (1993). Buckets of Water and Waves of Space: Why Spacetime is Probably a Substance. Philosophy of Science 60 (2):183-203.
Andrew Wayne (1997). Degrees of Freedom and the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory. Erkenntnis 46 (2):165-173.
Reidar Krummradt Lie (1986). The 'Borderzone Zone' Controversy a Study of Theory Structure in Biomedicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3).
David Liggins (2003). On Being Twice as Heavy. Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):203-7.
Brent Mundy (1989). On Quantitative Relationist Theories. Philosophy of Science 56 (4):582-600.
Newton C. A. Da Costa, Otávio Bueno & Steven French (1997). Suppes Predicates for Space-Time. Synthese 112 (2):271-279.
David Baker (2009). Against Field Interpretations of Quantum Field Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (3):585-609.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #157,399 of 1,789,835 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,835 )
How can I increase my downloads?