Epistemic and Ontic Commitments: In Perfect Alignment?
| Abstract | The epistemic form of structural realism asserts that our knowledge of the world is restricted to its structural features. Several proponents of this view assume that the world possesses non-structural features; features which, according to their view, cannot be known. In other words, they assume that there is, or, there ought to be (on the basis of normative arguments in epistemology), always a gap between our epistemological and ontological commitments. The ontic form of structural realism denies that this is, or ought to be, the case. Proponents of this view argue that the perfect alignment of epistemological and ontological commitments is a highly desirable metatheoretical feature. They argue this on the basis of the prima facie sensible principle that our ontological commitments ought never to overreach our epistemic ones. Naturally the issue of alignment transcends the debate between the epistemic and the ontic structural realists. Is it in principle impossible for there to be circumstances under which we ought to subscribe to the misalignment of epistemological and ontological commitments? What do the different answers to this question entail for ontic structural realism? | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesJuha Saatsi (2009). Whence Ontological Structural Realism? In M. Suarez (ed.), EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science. Springer.
J. Wolff (2012). Do Objects Depend on Structures? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (3):607-625.
Matteo Morganti (2004). On the Preferability of Epistemic Structural Realism. Synthese 142 (1):81--107.
Matteo Morganti (2011). Is There a Compelling Argument for Ontic Structural Realism? Philosophy of Science 78 (5):1165-1176.
Michael Esfeld (2013). Ontic Structural Realism and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1):19-32.
Michael Esfeld & Vincent Lam (2006). Moderate Structural Realism About Space-Time. Synthese 160 (1):27 - 46.
Wei Wang (2008). A Critical Analysis of Structural Realism. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (2):294-306.
Michael Esfeld (2009). The Modal Nature of Structures in Ontic Structural Realism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (2):179 – 194.
Vincent Lam & Michael Esfeld (2012). The Structural Metaphysics of Quantum Theory and General Relativity. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2):243-258.
Oliver Pooley (2006). Points, Particles and Structural Realism. In Dean Rickles, Steven French & Juha Saatsi (eds.), The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-06-20Total downloads11 ( #99,483 of 549,070 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,703 of 549,070 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
