Is structural realism possible?
Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S13-S24 (2001)
| Abstract | This paper examines in detail two paths that lead to Structural Realism (SR), viz. a substantive philosophical position which asserts that only the structure of the world is knowable. The upward path is any attempt to begin with empiricist premises and reach a sustainable realist position. (It has been advocated by Russell, Weyl, and Maxwell among others.) The downward path is any attempt to start from realist premises and construct a weaker realist position. (It has been recently advocated by Worrall, French, and Ladyman.) This paper unravels and criticizes the metaphysical presuppositions of both paths to SR. It questions its very possibility as a substantive-and viable-realist thesis | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesIoannis Votsis (2005). The Upward Path to Structural Realism. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1361-1372.
Jeffrey Ketland (2004). Empirical Adequacy and Ramsification. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):287-300.
Matteo Morganti (2004). On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism. Synthese 142 (1):81--107.
Michael Esfeld & Vincent Lam (2006). Moderate Structural Realism About Space-Time. Synthese 160 (1):27 - 46.
Daniel McArthur (2006). Recent Debates Over Structural Realism. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 37 (2):209 - 224.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads71 ( #11,999 of 549,715 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,807 of 549,715 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
