Palavras-chave
Scientific realism
Physics
Empiricism
Scientific models
Como Citar
Resumo
Descrevo as principais características do realismo puro do processo - realismo sobre os processos que são identificados pela dinâmica experimental estruturada por modelos científicos - mostrando que a visão atende aos critérios do realismo científico. Defendo que o realismo de processo resolve muitas das preocupações dos antirrealistas, incluindo os problemas de idealização, subdeterminação, contextualidade, multiplicidade e a meta-indução pessimista. Mostro essa resolução no contexto de um modelo polêmico da física: o modelo de Bohr do átomo. Em seguida, generalizo essa discussão para uma coleção de conclusões e restrições sobre o realismo de processo como uma visão, a fim de distingui-lo ainda mais do realismo ortodoxo, paradigmático de substância ou de coisa. Portanto, o realismo de processo puro é demonstrado como uma forma de realismo compatível com o empirismo.
Referências
BAIN, J., NORTON, J. “What should philosophers of science learn from the history of the electron”. In J. Z. Buchwald and A. Warwick (eds.) (2001), pp. 451-465.
BARWICH, A. S. “Measuring the world: olfaction as a process model of perception”. In D. Nicholson and J. Dupré (eds.) (2018), pp. 337-356.
BATTERMAN, R. “Idealizations and modeling”. Synthese, 169(3), pp. 427-446, 2009.
BLUM, A., JÄHNERT, M. “The birth of quantum mechanics from the spirit of radiation theory”. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 91, pp. 125-147, 2022.
BOHR, N. “On the constitution of atoms and molecules”. Philosophical Magazine Series 6, 26(151), pp. 1-25 476-502 857-875, 1913a.
BOHR, N. “On the effect of electric and magnetic fields on spectral lines”. Philosophical Magazine, 26, pp. 506-524, 1913b.
BOKULICH, A. “Explanatory fictions”. In M. Suárez (ed.) (2009), pp. 91-109, 2009.
BOKULICH, A. “How scientific models can explain”. Synthese , 180, pp. 33-45, 2011.
BOKULICH A. “Fiction as a vehicle for truth: moving beyond the ontic conception”. The Monist, 99, pp. 260-279, 2016.
BOKULICH, A., PARKER, W. “Data models, representation, and adequacy for purpose”. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11, Article 31, 2021. Preprint available at Preprint available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18530/ (last accessed 24 July, 2023).
BORN, M., HEISENBERG, W., JORDAN, P. “Zur Quantenmechanik”. Zeitschrift für Physik, 36, pp. 557-569. Translation available in Wearden (1986).
BUCHWALD, J. Z., WARWICK, A. Histories of the Electron. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001.
BUENO, O., CHEN, R.L., FAGAN, M.B. Individuation, Processes, and Scientific Practices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
CARTWRIGHT, N. “Models: parables v fables”. Art and Science, 262, pp. 19-31, 2010.
CHAKRAVARTY, A. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
CHANG, H. Realism for Realistic People: A New Pragmatist Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 2022.
CHEN, R.L. “Experimental individuation: creation and presentation”. In O. Bueno, R.L. Chen, and M.B. Fagan (eds.) (2018), pp. 192-213.
CLIFTON, R. Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996.
DUHEM, P. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. 1906. Transl. by P. P. Wiener, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.
DUPRÉ, J. Processes of Life: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
DUPRÉ, J. “Processes, organisms, kinds, and the inevitability of pluralism”. In O. Bueno, R.L. Chen, and M.B. Fagan (eds.) (2018), pp. 21-38.
EARLEY, J. “Process structural realism, instance ontology and societal order”. In F. Riffert and H.J. Sander (eds.) (2008a), pp. 190-211.
EARLEY, J. “Constraints on the origin of coherence in far-from-equilibrium chemical systems”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008b), pp. 63-73.
EARLEY, J. “Ontologically significant aggregation: process structural realism (PSR)”. In M. Weber (ed.) (2008c), pp. 2-179.
EARLEY, J. “How philosophy of mind needs philosophy of chemistry”. Hyle, 14(1), pp. 1-26, 2008d. Preprint available on Philsci Archive. URL: URL: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4031/ (last accessed 18 January 2023).
EARLEY, J. “A neglected aspect of the puzzle of chemical structure: how history helps”. Foundations of Chemistry, 14(3), pp. 235-243, 2012.
EARLEY, J. “How properties hold together in substances”. In E. Scerri and G. Fisher (eds.) (2016), pp. 199-216.
EASTMAN, T., KEETON, H. Physics and Whitehead: Quantum Process and Experience. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2008.
FARADAY, M. “The chemical history of the candle”. In B. Hammack and D. DeCoste (eds.) Michael Faraday’s THe Chemical History of the Candle with Guides to Lectures, Teaching Guides, and Student Activities, Urbana: Articulate Noise Books, 2016 [1848].
FAYE, J. Perspectives on Time. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer , 1996.
FEIGL, H. “Existential hypotheses: realistic versus phenomenalistic interpretations”. Philosophy of Science, 17, pp. 35-62.
FEIGL, H., MAXWELL, G. Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962.
FERNER, A., PRADEU, T. “Ontologies of living beings”. Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology, 9(4), 2017.
FINKELSTEIN, D. Quantum Relativity: A Synthesis of the Ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg. Berlin: Springer, 1996.
FINKELSTEIN, D. “Physical process and physical law”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008), pp.180-186.
GAO, S. “How do electrons move in atoms? From the Bohr model to quantum mechanics”. One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom: Proceedings from a Conference (ed. F. Aaserud and H. Kragh) (2021). Scientia Danica. Series M: Mathematica et physica, 1, pp. 450-464, 2015.
GELFERT, A., SECH, E. “The explanatory role of idealizations and limiting cases in models”. Forthcoming in Studia Metodologiczne.
GUAY, A., PRADEU, T. “Right out of the box: how to situate metaphysics of science in relation to other metaphysical approaches”. Synthese special issue: ‘new metaphysics of science,’ M. Kistler (ed.), 197(7), pp. 1847-1866, 2020.
HARTMANN, S. “The world as a process: simulations in the natural and social sciences”. In R. Hegselmann et.al. (eds.) (2005), pp. 77-100.
HEGSELMANN, R. et. al. Simulation and Modelling in the Social Sciences from the Philosophy of Science Point of View. Dordrecht: Kluwer , 2005.
HESSE, M. “Truth and growth of knowledge”. In F. Suppe & P.D. Asquith (eds.) (1976) PSA 1976, 2, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
HOYER, U. Neils Bohr, Collected Works, North Holland, Amsterdam, (1981).
JUNGERMAN, J. A. “Evidence for process in the physical world”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008), pp. 47-56.
KAISER, M. “Individuating part-whole relations in the biological world”. In O. Bueno, R.L. Chen, and M.B. Fagan (eds.) (2018), pp. 63-90.
KANZIAN, C. Persistence. Frankfurt: Ontos, 2007.
KITCHER, P. The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, Oxford: Oxford University Press , 1993.
KUHN, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. CHicago: University of CHicago Press, 1962 (1970).
LAUDAN, L. “A confutation of convergent realism”. Philosophy of Science , 48, pp. 19-48, 1981.
LAUDAN, L. “Demystifying underdetermination”. Savage, pp. 267-297, 1990.
LADYMAN, J., ROSS, D. Everything Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Don Ross, David Spurrett, John G. Collier (eds.). New York: Oxford University Press , 2007.
LEVERE, T. Transforming Matter: A History of Chemistry from Alchemy to the Buckyball. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
LINDBERG, D. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
LIU, C. “Approximations, idealizations, and models in statistical mechanics”. Erkenntnis, 60(20), pp. 235-263, 2004.
LONGINO, H. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton: Princeton University Press , 1990.
LONGINO, H. The Fate of Knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press , 2002.
LONGINO, H. “Interaction: a case for ontological pluralism”. Science Reviews, 45(3), pp. 432-445, 2020.
LYONS, T. “Towards a purely axiological scientific realism”. Erkenntnis , 63(2), pp. 167-204, 2005.
MALAMENT, D. “In defense of dogma: why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanical theory of (localizable) particles”. In R. Clifton (ed.) (1996), pp. 1-10.
MALIN, S. “Whitehead’s philosophy and the collapse of quantum states”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008), pp. 74-83.
MASSIMI, M. Perspectival Realism. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science (ed. K. Stanford). Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2022.
MCCOY, C.D., MASSIMI, M. “Simplified models: a new perspective on models as mediators”. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 8(1), pp. 99-123, 2017.
MEINCKE, A.S. “Autopoiesis, biological autonomy and the process view of life”. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 9(1), pp. 1-16, 2018.
MEINCKE, A.S. “The disappearance of change: towards a process account of persistence”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 27(1), pp.12-30, 2019.
MLADENOVIC, B. The Last Writings of Thomas Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press , 2022.
MORGAN, M. M., MORRISON, M. Models as Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1999.
MORRISON, M. “Models as autonomous agents”. In M. M. Morgan and M. Morrison (eds.) (1999), pp. 38-65.
MORRISON, M. “One phenomenon, many models: inconsistency and complementarity”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 42(2), pp. 342-351, 2011.
NICHOLSON, D., DUPRÉ, J. Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2018.
PAIS, A. Inward Bound: Of Matter and Forces in the Physical World. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
PAULI, W. Zeitschrift für Physik , 36, p. 336, 1926. Translation available in Wearden (1986).
PEMBERTON, J. “Individuating processes”. In O. Bueno, R.L. Chen, and M.B. Fagan (eds.) (2018), pp. 39-62.
PENN, W. Process Realism in Physics: How Experiment and History Necessitate a Process Ontology. In Process Thought (eds. N. Rescher, J. Seibt, M. Weber) vol 28. Berlin: DeGruyter, 2023.
POINCARÉ, H. Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover, 1952 (1905).
POLI, R., SEIBT, J. Theory and Applications of Ontology: Philosophical Perspectives. Heidelberg and New York: Springer, 2010.
POTTER, E. Gender and Boyle’s Law of Gases. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.
POTOCHNIK, A. “Why it matters that idealizations are false”. Talk available at Talk available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGfmhdRREu8 , preprint available at com/watch?v=xGfmhdRREu8, preprint available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21021/ (Last accessed 24 July 2023), 2020.
PRADEU, T. “Genidentity and biological processes”. In D. Nicholson and J. Dupré (eds.) (2018), pp. 96-112.
PSILLOS, S. “On van Fraassen’s critique of abductive reasoning”. Philosophical Quarterly, 46(182), pp. 31-47, 1996.
PSILLOS, S. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge, 1999.
PSILLOS, S. “How to be a scientific realist: a proposal to empiricists”. 2007. Preprint available at Preprint available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3436/ (last accessed 24 July 2023).
PSILLOS, S. “The realist turn in philosophy of science”. In The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism. Routledge, 2017.
RAVEN, M.J. There is a problem of change”. Philosophical Studies, 155(1), pp. 23-35, 2011.
REICHENBACH, H. Experience and Prediction. CHicago: University of CHicago Press , 1938.
REICHENBACH, H. “Dewey’s theory of science”. In P. A. Schilpp (ed.) (1939).
RIFFERT, F.G. “Whitehead’s process philosophy as scientific metaphysics”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008), pp. 199-222.
RIFFERT, F.G., SANDER, H.J. Researching Whitehead: System and Adventure. Berlin: Alber, 2008.
RUTHERFORD, E. Letter to N. Bohr, March 20, 1913, in U. Hoyer (ed.) (1981), p. 112.
SARGENT, R.M. “Robert Boyle and the masculine methods of science”. Philosophy of Science , 71(5), Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science AssociationPart II: Symposia Papers Edited by Sandra D. Mitchell, pp. 857-867, 2004.
SCERRI, E., FISHER, G. Essays in Philosophy of Chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press , 2016.
SCHILPP, P.A. The Philosophy of John Dewey. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1939.
SCHLICK, M. “Positivismus und Realismus”. Erkenntnis 3, pp. 1-31, 1932. Transl. as “Positivism and realism” by A. J. Ayer (ed.) Logical Positivism, Glencoe, NY: Free Press, 1960.
SCHROEDINGER, E. Naturwissenschaft. 14, p. 664, 1926.
SCRIVEN, M. “Explanations, predictions, and laws”. In H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.) (1962), pp. 170-230.
SEIBT, J. Towards Process Ontology: A Critical Study of Substance-Ontological Premises, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh; UMI Microfiche Publication, 1990.
SEIBT, J. “Non-countable individuals: why one and the same is not one and the same”. Southwest Philosophy Review, 12, pp. 225-237, 1996a.
SEIBT, J. “The myth of substance and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. Acta Analytica, 15, pp. 61-76, 1996b.
SEIBT, J. “Existence in time: from substance to process”. In J. Faye (ed.) (1996c), pp. 143-182.
SEIBT, J. “Free process theory: towards a typology of processes”. Axiomathes, 14, pp. 23-57, 2004a.
SEIBT, J. General Process Theory. Habilitationsschrift at the University of Konstanz, 2004b.
SEIBT, J. “Beyond endurance and perdurance: recurrent dynamics”. In C. Kanzian (ed.) (2007), pp. 133-165.
SEIBT, J. “Forms of emergence in general process theory”. Synthese , 166, pp. 479-517, 2009.
SEIBT, J. “Particulars”. In R. Poli and J. Seibt (eds.) (2010), pp. 23-56.
SEIBT, J. “Non-transitive parthood, leveled mereology, and the representation of emergent parts of processes”. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 91, pp. 165-190, 2015.
SEIBT, J. “What is a process? Modes of occurrence and forms of dynamicity in general process theory”. In R. Stout (ed.) (2018), pp. 120-148.
SELLARS, W. “Particulars”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 13, pp. 184-199, 1952.
SELLARS, W. Science, Perception, and Reality. Atascadero CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company, 1963.
SELLARS, W. “Foundations for a metaphysics of pure process”. The Monist , 64(1), pp. 3-90, 1981.
STANFORD, K. “Refusing the devil’s bargain: what kind of underdetermination should we take seriously”. Philosophy of Science , 68(3), pp. 1-12, 2001.
STANFORD, K. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives, Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2006.
STAPP, H.P. “Whiteheadian process and quantum theory”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008), pp. 92-102.
STOUT, R. Processes, Experiences, and Actions. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2018.
SUÁREZ, M. “Scientific representations: against similarity and isomorphism”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 17(3), pp. 225-244, 2003.
SUÁREZ, M. Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization. New York: Routledge, 2009.
TANAKA, Y. “The individuality of a quantum event: Whitehead’s epochal theory of time and Bohr’s framework of complementarity”. In T. Eastman and H. Keeton (eds.) (2008), pp. 164-179.
VAN FRAASSEN, B. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 1980.
WALLACE, D. “Stating structural realism: mathematics‐first approaches to physics and metaphysics”. Philosophical Perspectives, 36(1), pp. 345-378, 2022.
WEARDEN, B. L. Sources of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Dover , 1986.
WEBER, M. Handbook of Whiteheadian Process Thought. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2008.
WOODWARD, J. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2003.
WOODWARD, J. “From handles to interventions: commentary on R.G. Collingwood, ‘the so-called idea of causation’”. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(6), pp. 1-6, 2014a.
WOODWARD, J. “A functional theory of causation”. Philosophy of Science , 81, pp. 691-713, 2014b.
WRAY, B. “Pessimistic inductions: four varieties”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 29(1), pp. 61-73, 2015.
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia
Downloads
