Abstract
Structural realism comes in various shapes and sizes. First there is the epistemic kind which holds that at best we can have knowledge of the structure of the world. This comes in two main flavours: à la Ramsey (e.g. John Worrall and Elie Zahar 2001) claiming that the structure of the world is reflected in the Ramsey sentence of successful scientific theories and à la Russell (e.g. Ioannis Votsis 2005) claiming that we can infer certain things about the structure of the world from the structure of our perceptions. Then there is the ontic kind which also comes in a multitude of flavours, three of which stand out: (i) the ‘no objects view’ (e.g. James Ladyman 1998) according to which there exist no objects only structures, (ii) the ‘no individuals view’ (e.g. Steven French and Decio Krause 2006) which maintains that there exist no individuals but only structures and objects lacking individuality and (iii) the ‘no intrinsic natures view’ (e.g. Ladyman 2007) which eliminates intrinsic natures in favour of haecceity-free individuals and structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Concerning the ‘no objects view’, Ladyman insists (in private communication) he never intended to say that no objects exist. He admits, however, that certain of his early pronouncements have contributed to this misinterpretation.
- 2.
In a recent workshop on structural realism organised in Banff by Elaine Landry, Ladyman urged the participants, who parenthetically represented almost the whole spectrum of different structural realist positions and included most of the main players, to find a mutually agreeable formulation of what is common to all. What became clear by the end of the workshop was that no such formulation can easily be produced.
- 3.
The structural continuity claim is not the sole motivation for Poincaré’s epistemic structural realism as I indicate in Votsis (2004, ch. 2).
- 4.
I have defended a version of the structure vs. non-structure distinction in Votsis (2007).
- 5.
It is atypical but not unique. Several structures postulated within the framework of the caloric theory of heat have survived the theory’s demise and are still with us today, e.g., Sadi Carnot’s principle of maximum efficiency.
- 6.
Though not a structural realist, Robert Batterman (2002, pp. 17–19) draws a similar distinction between reduction (where the limit is regular) and intertheoretic relations (where it is singular).
- 7.
It may still be possible that two structures are somehow partially continuous on the basis of non-defining features. I mention this only as food for thought as I do not really put much trust in the claim that continuity of this kind is sufficient for (structural) realist purposes.
- 8.
For a similar point see also Paul Hoyningen-Huene (1993, p. 261).
- 9.
It is worth noting that we currently have evidence for the orbits of only around a dozen exoplanets.
- 10.
We only have a tentative account in the guise of the nebular hypothesis which provides sketches of the formation and evolution of solar systems.
- 11.
Radder (in e-mail communication) points out that this idea spells the end of convergent realism. Although strictly speaking correct, this does not mean that we slip back into anti-realism. After all, what I say here, i.e. that predictively and explanatorily successful theory parts still survive theory change, is consistent with realism. Moreover, not always having full convergence towards one or more successor theories does not mean having no convergence whatsoever. Remember, in the case at hand, Poiseuille’s law is the exception, not the rule!
- 12.
That the third premise amounts to preservation being a necessary condition of an element’s (approximate) truth is more clearly seen when formulated in its contrapositive form, i.e. the (approximate) truth of an element implies its preservation.
- 13.
This last scenario finds support in some interpretations of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.
- 14.
Under the current qualification, isolated incidents of narrowly construed Kuhn losses are not sufficient to undermine the structural continuity claim.
References
Bas C, Van Fraassen (2006), Structure: Its Shadow and Substance, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 57(2): 275–307.
Batterman, Robert (2002), The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence, New York: Oxford University Press.
Bird (2004), Thomas Kuhn, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
Brading, Katherine and Elaine Landry (2006), Scientific Structuralism: Presentation and Representation, Philosophy of Science, vol. 73(5): 571–581.
French, Steven and Harmke Kamminga (1993), Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 148, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
French, Steven and Decio Krause (2006), Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical and Formal Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hans, Radder (1996), In and About the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology, New York: S.U.N.Y. Press.
Hasok, Chang (2003), Preservative Realism and Its Discontents: Revisiting Caloric, Philosophy of Science, vol. 70(5): 902–912.
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (1993), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ioannis, Votsis (2007), Uninterpreted Equations and the Structure-Nature Distinction, Philosophical Inquiry, vol. 29(1–2): 57–71.
James, Ladyman (1998), What Is Structural Realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 29: 409–424.
John, Worrall (1989), Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds? in Papineau, D. (ed.) The Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
John, Worrall and Elie Zahar (2001), Ramseyfication and Structural Realism, Appendix IV, in E. Zahar, Poincaré’s Philosophy: From Conventionalism to Phenomenology, Chicago and La Salle (IL): Open Court.
Kuhn ([1962]1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kyle, Stanford (2006), Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ladyman, James (2007), Structural Realism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/
McAllister (2007), Introduction. Dilemmas in Science: What, Why, and How, in Knowledge in Ferment, Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Poincaré, Henri ([1905]1952), Science and Hypothesis, New York: Dover.
Post, Heinz R. (1971), Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics, repr, in S. French and H. Kamminga (eds.), Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: Essays in Honour of Heinz Post, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 148, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Redhead, Michael L.G. (2001), The Intelligibility of the Universe, in A.O’Hear (ed.) Philosophy at the New Millennium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stathis, Psillos (1999), Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London: Routledge.
Votsis, Ioannis (2004), The Epistemological Status of Scientific Theories: An Investigation of the Structural Realist Account, London School of Economics, unpublished PhD thesis.
Votsis, Ioannis (2005), The Upward Path to Structural Realism, Philosophy of Science, vol. 72(5): 1361–1372.
Wladyslaw, Krajewski (1977), Correspondence Principle and Growth of Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Zahar, Elie (2001), Poincaré’s Philosophy: From Conventionalism to Phenomenology, Chicago and La Salle (IL): Open Court.
Acknowledgements
My sincerest thanks to Hans Radder who has provided helpful feedback. This work was in part made possible by funding from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Votsis, I. (2010). Structural Realism: Continuity and Its Limits. In: Bokulich, A., Bokulich, P. (eds) Scientific Structuralism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 281. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9597-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9597-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9596-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9597-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)