Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

A critique of Ontological Pluralism: the case for Quantum Mechanics

A critique of Ontological Pluralism: the case for Quantum Mechanics;
A critique of Ontological Pluralism: the case for Quantum Mechanics

dc.creatorVila Pérez, Juan Manuel
dc.date2016-05-11
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-21T20:50:24Z
dc.date.available2020-08-21T20:50:24Z
dc.identifierhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/1276
dc.identifier10.18270/rcfc.v15i31.1276
dc.identifier.urihttp://test.repositoriodigital.com:8080/handle/123456789/11098
dc.descriptionScientifically speaking, quantum mechanics (QM) is the most successful theory ever made. Philosophically speaking, however, it is the most controversial theory. Its basic principles seem to contravene our deepest intuitions about reality, which are reflected in the metaphysical commitments of classical mechanics (CM). The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I argue that QM implies an ontological challenge, and not merely an “ontic” one, as it has been traditionally interpreted in the analytic tradition. Second, I suggest that positions known as “ontological pluralism” exhibit an internal weakness due to its unwarranted compromise to a representational view of scientific theories.en-US
dc.descriptionScientifically speaking, quantum mechanics (QM) is the most successful theory ever made. Philosophically speaking, however, it is the most controversial theory. Its basic principles seem to contravene our deepest intuitions about reality, which are reflected in the metaphysical commitments of classical mechanics (CM). The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I argue that QM implies an ontological challenge, and not merely an “ontic” one, as it has been traditionally interpreted in the analytic tradition. Second, I suggest that positions known as “ontological pluralism” exhibit an internal weakness due to its unwarranted compromise to a representational view of scientific theories.es-AR
dc.descriptionScientifically speaking, quantum mechanics (QM) is the most successful theory ever made. Philosophically speaking, however, it is the most controversial theory. Its basic principles seem to contravene our deepest intuitions about reality, which are reflected in the metaphysical commitments of classical mechanics (CM). The aim of this paper is twofold. First, I argue that QM implies an ontological challenge, and not merely an “ontic” one, as it has been traditionally interpreted in the analytic tradition. Second, I suggest that positions known as “ontological pluralism” exhibit an internal weakness due to its unwarranted compromise to a representational view of scientific theories.es-ES
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad El Bosquees-ES
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unbosque.edu.co/index.php/rcfc/article/view/1276/874
dc.relation10.18270/rcfc.v15i31.1276.g874
dc.relation/*ref*/Beller, M. Quantum Dialogue: The Making of Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Bohm, David. Quantum Theory. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952. Bohr, N. “Causality and Complementarity”. Philosophy of Science 4 (1937): 289-298. _____. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature. Londres: Cambridge, 1934. Born, M. The Born-Einstein Letters. Trad. Irene Born. Londres: MacMillan, 1971. Bokulich, A. “Open or Closed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the Relation between Classical and Quantum Mechanics”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35 (2004): 377-396. Chang, Hasok. Is Water H₂o?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012. Cartwright, N. “Fundamentalism vs. the Patchwork of Laws”, in M. Soteriou, (ed) Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in D. Papineau, (ed) The Philosophy of Science. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. 1994. Cushing, J. T. Quantum Mechanics. Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. _____. “Quantum Theory and Explanatory Discourse: Endgame for Understanding?” Philosophy of Science 58 (1991): 337-358. Davidson, D. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme”. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47 (1973/1974): 5-20. Eller, Jack D. Introducing Anthropology of Religion: Culture to the Ultimate. New York: Routledge, 2007. Feyerabend, Paul K. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge. London: NLB, 1978. Fodor, J. “Special Sciences or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”. Synthese 28 (1974): 97-115. French, S. & Krause, D. Identity in Physics: A Historical, Philosophical, and Formal Analysis. EE. UU.: Oxford University Press, 2006. Giere, R. N. Science without Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Goodman, N. “Works, Words, Worlds”. Erkenntnis 9 (1975): 57-73. Grossman, N. “Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Theory”. Synthese, 35 (1977): 79-97 Heelan, P. “Heisenberg and Radical Theoretic Change”. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 6 (1975): 113-138. _____. Quantum Mechanics and Objectivity. Netherlands: The Hague, 1969 Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy. Nueva York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Howard, D. “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’? A Study in Mythology”. Philosophy of Science 71 (2004): 669-682
dc.relation/*ref*/Karakostas, V. “Realism and Objectivism in Quantum Mechanics”. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2012): 45-65. Kellert, Stephen H. ; Longino, Helen E. & Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.) Scientific Pluralism. Univ of Minnesota Press. 2006. Kitcher, P. “1953 and all that: A Tale of Two Sciences”. Philosophical Review 93 (1984): 335-373. Krause, D. “Remarks on Quantum Ontology”. Synthese 125 (2000): 155-167. Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Lombardi, O. & Narvaja, M. “Sobre la naturaleza posible de las entidades cuánticas”. Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia 15 (2009): 320-326. Lombardi, O. & Pérez Ransanz, A. “Lenguaje, ontología y relaciones interteóricas: en favor de un genuino pluralismo ontológico”. ARBOR. Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura 187 (2011): 43-52. Lombardi, O. “Mecánica cuántica: ontología, lenguaje y racionalidad”. Racionalidad en Ciencia y Tecnología. Nuevas Perspectivas Iberoamericanas. Comp. A. R. Perez Ransanz y A. Velasco Gomez. México: UNAM, 2011. Longino, H. The Fate of Knowledge. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002. Lowe, E. J. More Kinds of Being: A Further Study of Individuation, Identity, and the Logic of Sortal Terms. USA: Wiley/Blackwell, 2009. Lukasiewicz, J. & Wedin, V. “On the Principle of Contradiction in Aristotle”. The Review of Metaphysics 24 (1971): 485-509. Mill, John S. On Liberty. Raleigh, N.C: Alex Catalogue, 1990. Nagel, Ernest. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. Price, Huw. "Agency and Causal Asymmetry." Mind. 101.403 (1992): 501-520. Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. Order out of Chaos. Londres: Flamingo, 1984. Pringe, H. “La filosofía trascendental y la interpretación de Bohr de la teoría cuántica”. Scientiæ studia 10 (2012): 179-194. Putnam, H. Philosophical Paper. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Quine, W.V. “On What There Is”. “Speaking of Objects”. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 31 (1956/1957): 5-22. _____. Review of Metaphysics 2 (1948/1949): 21-38. Redhead, M. L. G. & Teller, P. “Quantum physics and the identity of indiscernibles”. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43 (1992):201-218. Richardson, R. “The Many Unities of Science: Politics, Semantics, and Ontology”. Scientific Pluralism. Comp. S. H Kellert, E. Longino & K. Waters. EE. UU. Minessota University Press, 2006. Rosenberg, A. “How is Biological Explanation Possible?” British Society of the Philosophy of Science 52 (2001): 735-760. Sklar, L. “The reduction (?) of thermodynamics to statistical mechanics”. Philosophical Studies 95 (1999): 187-202. Scerri, E., Mcintyre, L. “The Case for the Philosophy of Chemistry”. Synthese 111 (1997): 213-232. Taylor, C., “Ontology”. Philosophy 34/129 (1959): 125-141. Worrall, J., “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43 (1989): 99-124.
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2015 Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Cienciaes-ES
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia; Vol 15 No 31 (2015): Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Cienciaen-US
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia; ##issue.vol## 15 ##issue.no## 31 (2015): Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Cienciaes-AR
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia; Vol. 15 Núm. 31 (2015): Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Cienciaes-ES
dc.source2463-1159
dc.source0124-4620
dc.titleA critique of Ontological Pluralism: the case for Quantum Mechanicsen-US
dc.titleA critique of Ontological Pluralism: the case for Quantum Mechanicses-AR
dc.titleA critique of Ontological Pluralism: the case for Quantum Mechanicses-ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer

No hay ficheros asociados a este ítem.

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem