Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor, Institute for Science and Technology Studies of Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
One of the most important arguments against scientific realism is underdetermination, so realists should address the argument satisfactorily and give an appropriate response to it. Underdetermination divides into holist and contrastive forms; in this article, we will only deal with the contrastive form. By examining different responses, it will turn out that while they are successful in some cases, there are instances where responses are not satisfactory. Specifically, two formulations of Newtonian mechanics are examined and the examination reveals an important instance of underdetermination that cannot be accounted for by most responses. We argue that the appropriate option is ontic structural realism that can resolve the underdetermination. We also should emphasize that ontic structural realism is empirical and a posteriori, meaning that the truth of its claim must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Keywords
- Bain, (forthcoming) http://faculty.poly.edu/~jbain/papers/SR.pdf
- Bain, J. (2013) "Category-Theoretic Structure and Radical Ontic Structural Realism", Synthese, 190: 1621–1635.
- Boyd, R. (1984) "The Current Status of the Realism Debate", in J.Leplin (ed.) Scientific Realism, Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Boyd, , Gasper, P. (1991) The Philosophy of Science, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Coffey, K. (2014) "Theoretical Equivalence as Interpretative Equivalence", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 65: 821–844.
- Cartan, E.(1923) “Sur les variètès aconnexion affine et al th orie de la relativitè gènèralisèe”, Annales Scientifiques de l’Ecole Normale Supèrieure, 40: 325-412.
- Cartan, E.(1924) “Sur les vari tès aconnexion affine et al thèorie de la relativitè gènèralisèe” Annales Scientifiques de l’Ecole Normale Sup rieure, 41: 1–25.
- Chakravartty, A. (2007) A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Chakravartty, A. (2017) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
- Earman, J. (1993) “Underdetermination, Realism, and Reason”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18: 19–38.
- French, S. (2014) The Structure of the World Metaphysics and Representation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Friedrichs, K. (1927) “Eine Invariante Formulierung des Newtonschen Gravitationsgesetzes und derGrenzūberganges vom Einsteinschen zum Newtonschen Gesetz”. Mathematische Annalen, 98: 566–575.
- Jones, R. (1991) “Realism About What?”, Philosophy of Science, 58: 185–202.
- Ladyman, J. (2002) Understanding Philosophy of Science, London,
- Ladyman, J.; Presnell, S. (2018) The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 69: 377–420.
- Laudan, L. (1990) “Demystifying Underdetermination, in Scientific Theories”, C. Wade Savage (ed.), Series: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 267–297.
- Laudan, L.; Leplin, J. (1991) “Empirical equivalence and underdetermination”, The Journal of Philosophy, 88: 449–472.
- Malament, D. B. (2012) Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Masoumi, S. (1395) A Realistic View toward Quantum Mechanics, 6 (2): 125-155, (in Persian).
- Miler, B. (2015) “What is Hacking’s argument for entity realism?”, Synthese, 193: 991–1006.
- Psillos, S. (1999) Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London: Routledge.
- Putnam, H. (1975) Mathematics, Matter and Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Pyka, A.; Deichsel S. (2013) “Cutting Back Models and Simulations, in Tolk” (ed.) Ontology, Epistemology, and Teleology for Modeling and Simulation Philosophical Foundations for Intelligent M&S Applications, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
- Sphan, C. (2011) “Prospects of Objective Knowledge”, in Welsch, W., Singer, W., Wunder, A. (eds.) Interdisciplinary Anthropology Continuing Evolution of Man, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
- Stanford, K. (2017) Underdetermination of Scientific Theory, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination.
- Tulodziecki, D. (2012) “Epistemic Equivalence and Epistemic Incapacitation”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63: 313–328.
- van Fraassen, B. C. (1980) Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Weatherall, J. O. (2015) Are Newtonian gravitation and geometrized Newtonian gravitation theoretically equivalent?, Erkenntnis Published Online, doi:1007/s10670-015-9783-5.
- Weatherall, J. O. (2017) Classical Spacetime Structure, https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.05887
- Weyl, H. (1952) [1918] Space Time Matter, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY.
- Worrall, J. (2011) “Underdetermination, realism and empirical equivalence”, Synthese, 180: 157–172.
)
Send comment about this article