The spectrum of metametaphysics
Mapping the state of art in scientific metaphysics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2021.1.41217Keywords:
Metametaphysics, Metaphysics, Methodology of metaphysics, Naturalism, Scientific metaphysicsAbstract
Scientific realism is typically associated with metaphysics. One current incarnation of such an association concerns the requirement of a metaphysical characterization of the entities one is being a realist about. This is sometimes called “Chakravartty’s Challenge”, and codifies the claim that without a metaphysical characterization, one does not have a clear picture of the realistic commitments one is engaged with. The required connection between metaphysics and science naturally raises the question of whether such a demand is appropriately fulfilled, and how metaphysics engages with science in order to produce what is called “scientific metaphysics”. Here, we map some of the options available in the literature, generating a conceptual spectrum according to how each view approximates science and metaphysics. This is done with the purpose of enlightening the current debate on the possibility of epistemic warrant that science could grant to such a metaphysics, and how different positions differently address the thorny issue concerning such a warrant.
Downloads
References
ARENHART, J. R. B. Ontological frameworks for scientific theories. Foundations of science, [S. I.], v. 17, n. 4, p. 339-356, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-012-9288-5
ARENHART, J. R. B.; ARROYO, R. W. On physics, metaphysics, and metametaphysics. Metaphilosophy, [S. I.], v. 52, n. 2, p. 175-199, 2021a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12486
ARENHART, J. R. B.; ARROYO, R. W. Back to the question of ontology (and metaphysics). Manuscrito, [S. I.], v. 44, n. 2, p. 1-51, 2021b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n2.jr
ARROYO, R. W. Is Coronavirus an object? Metametaphysics meets medical sciences. Voluntas, [S. I.], v. 11, n. 5, p. 1-8, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5902/2179378643633
ARROYO, R. W.; ARENHART, J. R. B. Between physics and metaphysics: A discussion of the status of mind in quantum mechanics. In: DE BARROS, J. A.; MONTEMAYOR, C. (ed.). Quanta and Mind: Essays on the Connection between Quantum Mechanics and the Consciousness. Switzerland: Springer, 2019. p. 31-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21908-6_3
ARROYO, R. W.; ARENHART, J. R. B. Floating free from physics: The metaphysics of quantum mechanics. In: AERTS, D. et al. (ed.). Probing the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics. Singapore: World Scientific, 2021. Forthcoming. Available at: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18477. Accessed on: Jun 25 2021.
BENNETT, K. There is no special problem with metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 173, n. 1, p. 21-37, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0439-0
BENOVSKY, J. Meta-metaphysics: On metaphysical equivalence, primitiveness, and theory choice. Switzerland: Springer, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25334-3
BRADING, K.; SKILES, A. Underdetermination as a path to structural realism. In: LANDRY, E. M.; RICKLES, D. P. (ed.). Structural Realism: Structure, Object, and Causality. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. p. 99-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2579-9_5
BRYANT, A. Naturalisms. Think, [S. I.], v. 19, n. 56, p. 35-50, 2020a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175620000196
BRYANT, A. Keep the chickens cooped: the epistemic inadequacy of free range metaphysics. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 197, n. 5, p. 1867-1887, 2020b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1398-8
BUENO, O. Structural realism, mathematics, and ontology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, [S. I.], v. 74, p. 4-9, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.005
BURGESS, J. P. Mathematics and Bleak House. Philosophia Mathematica, [S. I.], v. 12.1, p. 18-36, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/12.1.18
CALLENDER, C. Philosophy of science and metaphysics. In: FRENCH, S.; SAATSI, J. (ed.). The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science. London: Continuum, 2011. p. 33-54.
CHAKRAVARTTY, A. A metaphysics for scientific realism: Knowing the unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487354
CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Six degrees of speculation: Metaphysics in empirical contexts. In: MONTON, B. (ed.). Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 183-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218844.003.0010
CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Inessential Aristotle: Powers without essences. In: GROFF, R. (ed.). Revitalizing Causality: Realism about causality in philosophy and social science. New York: Routledge, 2008.
CHAKRAVARTTY, A. On the prospects of naturalized metaphysics. In: ROSS, D.; LADYMAN, J.; KINCAID, H. (ed.). Scientific Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. p. 27-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696499.003.0002
CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Scientific ontology: Integrating naturalized metaphysics and voluntarist epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.
CHAKRAVARTTY, A. Physics, metaphysics, disposition, and symmetries – à la French. Studies in Hisory and Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 74, p. 10-15, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.006
DE RONDE, C. Immanent powers versus causal powers (propensities, latencies and dispositions) in quantum mechanics. In: AERTS, D. et al. (ed.). Probing the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics: Information, Contextuality, Relationalism and Entanglement. Singapore: World Scientific, 2019. p. 141-178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813276895_0008
DE RONDE, C.; MASSRI, C. The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics: I. Kochen-Specker contextuality and global intensive valuations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, [S. I.], v. 60, b. 2, p. 429-456, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-018-3914-0
DE RONDE, C.; MASSRI, C. The logos categorical approach to quantum mechanics: II. Quantum superpositions and intensive values. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, [S. I.], v. 58, p. 1986-1988, 2019a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-019-04091-x
DE RONDE, C.; MASSRI, C. A new objective definition of quantum entanglement as potential coding of intensive and effective relations. Synthese, [S. I.], p. 1-28, 2019b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02482-5
FRENCH, S. The structure of the world: Metaphysics and representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684847.001.0001
FRENCH, S. Realism and metaphysics. In: SAATSI, J. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism. New York: Routledge, 2018a. p. 394-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712498-32
FRENCH, S. Toying with the toolbox: How metaphysics can still make a contribution. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 49, p. 211-230, 2018b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-018-9401-8
FRENCH, S. Defending eliminative structuralism and a whole lot more (or less). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, [S. I.], v. 74, p. 22-29, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.007
FRENCH, S. Doing away with dispositions: Powers in the context of modern physics. In: MEINCKE, A. S. (Ed.). Dispositionalism: Perspectives from Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. Cham: Synthese, 2020. p. 189-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28722-1_12
FRENCH, S.; KRAUSE, D. Identity in physics: A historical, philosophical, and formal analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199278245.001.0001
FRENCH, S.; MCKENZIE, K. Thinking outside the toolbox: Towards a more productive engagement between metaphysics and philosophy of physics. European journal of analytic philosophy, [S. I.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 42-59, 2012.
FRENCH, S.; MCKENZIE, K. Rethinking outside the toolbox: Reflecting again on the relationship between philosophy of science and metaphysics. In: BIGAJ, T.; WÜTHRICH, C. (ed.). Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics. Leiden: Brill/Rodopi, 2015. p. 25-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004310827_003
GUAY, A.; PRADEU, T. Right out of the box: How to situate metaphysics of science in relation to other metaphysical approaches. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 197, n. 5, p. 1847-1866, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1576-8
HEISENBERG, W. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1958.
HOFWEBER, T. Carnap’s big idea. In: BLATTI, S.; LAPOINTE, S. (ed.). Ontology after Carnap. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. p. 13-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661985.003.0002
HOFWEBER, T. How metaphysics is special: comments on Bennett. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 173, n. 1, p. 39-48, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0435-4
HOFWEBER, T. Is metaphysics special? In: BLISS, R.; MILLER, J. T. M. (ed.). The Routledge Book of Metametaphysics. London: Routledge, 2021. p. 421-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112596-33
LADYMAN, J. What is structural realism? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 29, n. 3, p. 409-424, 1998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(98)80129-5
LADYMAN, J.; ROSS, D. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001
LEWIS, P. J. Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190469825.001.0001
LOWE, J. E. The possibility of metaphysics: Substance, identity, and time. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
LOWE, J. E. The rationality of metaphysics. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 178, p. 99-109, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9514-z
MADDY, P. Three forms of naturalism. In: SHAPIRO, S. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 437-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195148770.003.0013
MADDY, P. Second Philosophy: A Naturalistic Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199273669.001.0001
MARGENAU, H. Philosophical problems concerning the meaning of measurement in physics. Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 25, p. 23-33, 1958. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/287574
MCKENZIE, K. A curse on both houses: Naturalistic versus A Priori metaphysics and the problem of progress. Res Philosophica, [S. I.], v. 97, n. 1, p. 1-29, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.1868
MCLEOD, M.; PARSONS, J. Maclaurin and Dyke on analytic metaphysics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Routledge, v. 91, n. 1, p. 173-178, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2012.730534
MORGANTI, M. Science-based metaphysics: On some recent anti-metaphysical claims. Philosophia Scientiæ, [S. I.], v. 19, n. 1, p. 57-70, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae.1038
MORGANTI, M.; TAHKO, T. E. Moderately naturalistic metaphysics. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 194, n. 7, p. 2557-2580, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1068-2
PAUL, L. A. Metaphysics as modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 160, p. 1-29, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-012-9906-7
PSILLOS, S. Choosing the realist framework. Synthese, [S. I.], v. 180, n. 2, p. 301-316, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9606-9
QUINE, W. V. O. On Carnap’s views on ontology. Philosophical Studies, [S. I.], v. 2, n. 5, p. 65-72, 1951. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199422
ROBUS, O. M. Does science license metaphysics? Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 89, n. 5, p. 845-855, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/684023
ROSS, D.; SPURRETT, D. What to say to a skeptical metaphysician: A defense manual for cognitive and behavioral scientists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, [S. I.], v. 27, n. 5, p. 603-627, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000147
SKLAR, L. I’d love to be a naturalist—if only I knew what naturalism was. Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 77, n. 5, p. 1121-1137, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/656827
TAHKO, T. E. An introduction to metametaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
THOMSON-JONES, M. Against bracketing and complacency: Metaphysics and the methodology of the sciences. In: SLATER, M. H.; YUDELL, Z. (ed.). In Metaphysics in the Philosophy of Science: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 229-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199363209.003.0011
VAN FRAASSEN, B. C. Quantum mechanics: An Empiricist View. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198239807.001.0001
VETTER, B. Digging deeper: Why metaphysics is more than a toolbox. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, [S. I.], v. 49, p. 231-241, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-017-9387-7
WALLACE, D. The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001
WOLFF, J. Naturalistic quietism or scientific realism? Synthese, [S. I.], v. 196, n. 2, p. 485-498, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0873-3
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Veritas (Porto Alegre)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
