David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Alisa Bokulich & Peter Bokulich (eds.), Scientific Structuralism (2011)
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
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ioannis Votsis, How Not to Be a Realist or Why We Ought to Make It Safe for Closet Structural Realists to Come Out.
Bryan W. Roberts (2011). Group Structural Realism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (1):47-69.
Ioannis Votsis (2011). Structural Realism: Continuity and its Limits. In. In Alisa Bokulich & Peter Bokulich (eds.), Scientific Structuralism. Springer Science+Business Media. 105--117.
Daniel McArthur (2006). Recent Debates Over Structural Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 37 (2):209 - 224.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #21,682 of 1,008,320 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #15,867 of 1,008,320 )
How can I increase my downloads?