Otávio Bueno

Direct realism is the view according to which the world is perceived directly rather than as the result of a mediation via sense data or other kinds of mental representation. A defense of direct realism is offered by indicating the difficulties of some arguments in support of indirect realism, whether on scientific or philosophical grounds. Moreover, a version of direct realism in terms of disjunctivism, which distinguishes veridical perception from illusion and hallucination, is also resisted. In contrast with disjunctivism, direct realism alone is able to account for perception by integrating it with hallucination and illusion. As Rami Ali argues, the former can be understood as a case of the latter, and the latter includes perception. The result is a defensible form of direct realism. Rather than taking this as a dogmatic view about the nature of perception, however, I offer it within a neo-Pyrrhonian stance.

There is no doubt that colors play a crucial role in the fine arts. Both the phenomenology and the interpretation of paintings, photographs, and films change dramatically depending on the colors that are used to compose them. A black and white reproduction of a Rothko painting loses one of the central traits of the work. It is similarly a crucial aesthetic choice by photographers or filmmakers to have their work shot in color or in black and white. This choice will constrain the phenomenology of the resulting photographs and films and how viewers will eventually perceive and interpret them. Less clear, however, is the significance, the meaning of colors in the fine arts. In this paper, I argue that colors have no absolute meaning in the arts, but the effect they are supposed to engender in viewers, the significance that colors have in various pieces, will change as we consider different works, even, in some cases, if they belong to the same period. Despite the relatively uniform phenomenology of colors, their meaning varies dramatically in painting, photographs, and films. This makes colors behave in far more conventional ways, that is, representing via conventional codes rather than via recognitional prompts, than we may initially think in light of how relatively stable color phenomenology tends to be. It is, thus, important to distinguish the way colors represent from the way they are present in these various media. And by examining the implications of this distinction, I argue, we obtain a suggestive framework to examine colors in the fine arts. To support this conclusion I examine the meaning and significance of colors in selected paintings, photographs, and films, identifying some similarities but particularly several differences among various works.

De acordo com o estruturalismo matemático, a matemática não consiste no estudo de objetos matemáticos, mas de estruturas. Ao afastar-se dos objetos, o estruturalista reivindica uma posição que lhe permite resolver o problema do “acesso”: é possível explicar a possibilidade do conhecimento matemático sem exigir qualquer acesso aos objetos em questão. Fraser MacBride criticou a resposta estruturalista, argumentando que esta enfrenta um dilema na tentativa de resolver o problema em apreço. Neste artigo, argumento que o dilema de MacBride pode ser resistido e que, especialmente na versão articulada por Michael Resnik, o estruturalismo pode resolver o problema do “acesso”. Mostro exatamente como o dilema de MacBride falha, argumentando que esta falha nos fornece uma oportunidade para destacar uma característica importante do estruturalismo, a saber: a maneira pela qual ele articula uma imagem fundamentalmente diferente da epistemologia matemática com relação àquela sugerida pela epistemologia tradicional.

Crucial to Hilary Putnam’s realism in the philosophy of mathematics is to maintain the objectivity of mathematics without the commitment to the existence of mathematical objects. Putnam’s indispensability argument was devised as part of this conception. In this paper, I reconstruct and reassess Putnam’s argument for the indispensability of mathematics, and distinguish it from the more familiar, Quinean version of the argument. Although I argue that Putnam’s approach ultimately fails, I develop an alternative way of implementing his form of realism about mathematics that, by using different resources than those Putnam invokes, avoids the difficulties faced by his view.

Modality - the question of what is possible and what is necessary - is a fundamental area of philosophy and philosophical research. The Routledge Handbook of Modality is an outstanding reference source to the key topics, problems and debates in this exciting subject and is the first collection of its kind. Comprising thirty-five chapters by a team of international contributors the Handbook is divided into seven clear parts: worlds and modality essentialism, ontological dependence, and modality modal anti-realism epistemology of modality modality in science modality in logic and mathematics modality in the history of philosophy. Within these sections the central issues, debates and problems are examined, including possible worlds, essentialism, counterfactuals, ontological dependence, modal fictionalism, deflationism, the integration challenge, conceivability, a priori knowledge, laws of nature, natural kinds, and logical necessity. The Routledge Handbook of Modality is essential reading for students and researchers in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of language. It will also be very useful for those in related fields in philosophy such as philosophy of mathematics, logic and philosophy of science.

Paraconsistent logics, minimally, are not explosive; that is, on these logics, not everything follows from a contradiction of the form ‘A and not-A’. Dialetheists, who argue that some contradictions are true (Priest [2006]), have philosophically interpreted such logics as supporting the existence of true contradictions, since they allow for the possibility of true contradictions without triviality. In this paper, I provide basic criteria for philosophical interpretations of logics and consider the costs of violating such criteria, especially by engaging in logical overinterpretation. I argue that overinterpretation supports metaphysical or epistemological readings of logics that are not called for and that can be resisted on philosophically independent grounds. A more neutral, modalist-empiricist stance toward logics in general, and of paraconsistent logics in particular, is then advanced.

Mathematical fictionalism is the view according to which mathematical objects are ultimately fictions, and, thus, need not be taken to exist. This includes fictional objects, whose existence is typically not assumed to be the case. There are different versions of this view, depending on the status of fictions and on how they are connected to the world. In this paper, I critically examine the various kinds of fictionalism that Roberto Torretti identifies, determining to what extent they provide independent, defensible conceptions of mathematical ontology and how they differ from platonism (the view according to which mathematical objects and structures exist and are abstract, that is, they are neither causally active nor are located in spacetime). I then contrast Torretti’s forms of fictionalism with a version of the view that, I argue, is clearly non-platonist and provides a deflationary account of mathematical ontology, while still accommodating the attractive features of the view that Torretti identified.

Markus Gabriel’s reconceptualization of ontology in terms of fields of sense provides a pluralist alternative to monist and more traditional ontological views. Part of the motivation for the shift to fields of sense involves a critique of the use of set theory in ontology. In this paper, I examine some limitations of set-theoretic ontology, consider possible defenses and the difficulties they face. I then critically assess the alternative offered by fields of sense and raise an epistemological concern about them relative to mathematical practice. In conclusion, it seems that, with regard to the foundations of mathematics, fields of sense fail to play a foundational role.

Newman’s objection can be used to argue that structuralism fails to specify a unique structure for the unobservable world, and hence, one can argue, it is ultimately a trivial task to determine the structure that the world ultimately has. Provided there are enough objects, any structure can be made compatible with that structure. We formulate a pragmatically enriched version of structuralism that avoids the Newman objection. For this purpose, we return to Carnap’s conception of founded relations, and provide a different interpretation of them. According to Carnap, these are real, experienceable, physical relations. We argue that, when we specify a structural description of a given physical system, if we rely on such founded relations—provided they are properly understood—the threat of the Newman objection is avoided. However, pure structuralism has to be given up, and a form of empiricism can then be advanced. Finally, by using founded relations, we offer a framework in terms of which different conceptions can be articulated to avoid the Newman problem as well.

Modality - the question of what is possible and what is necessary - is a fundamental area of philosophy and philosophical research. The Routledge Handbook of Modality is an outstanding reference source to the key topics, problems and debates in this exciting subject and is the first collection of its kind. Comprising thirty-five chapters by a team of international contributors the Handbook is divided into seven clear parts: worlds and modality; essentialism, ontological dependence, and modality; modal anti-realism; epistemology of modality; modality in science; modality in logic and mathematics; modality in the history of philosophy. Within these sections the central issues, debates and problems are examined, including possible worlds, essentialism, counterfactuals, ontological dependence, modal fictionalism, deflationism, the integration challenge, conceivability, a priori knowledge, laws of nature, natural kinds, and logical necessity. The Routledge Handbook of Modality is essential reading for students and researchers in epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of language. It will also be very useful for those in related fields in philosophy such as philosophy of mathematics, logic and philosophy of science.

Quantifier variance faces a number of difficulties. In this paper we first formulate the view as holding that the meanings of the quantifiers may vary, and that languages using different quantifiers may be charitably translated into each other. We then object to the view on the basis of four claims: (i) quantifiers cannot vary their meaning extensionally by changing the domain of quantification; (ii) quantifiers cannot vary their meaning intensionally without collapsing into logical pluralism; (iii) quantifier variance is not an ontological doctrine; (iv) quantifier variance is not compatible with charitable translation and as such is internally inconsistent. In light of these troubles, we recommend the dissolution of quantifier variance and suggest that the view be laid to rest.

This chapter introduces a structural account of representation through partial structures and examines its ontological commitments. It is pointed out that structural approaches to scientific representation emphasize the crucial role played by structures in representing salient features of the world. It is common to present and, in some cases, even to reify such structures as abstract entities, in particular as set-theoretic constructs. Against this view, it is argued that no such reification is called for and that several strategies can be articulated to avoid commitment to set-theoretic structures in the defense of structural representation. In the end, one can favor the latter without being platonist about the former.

We advance a framework for an inferential conception of physical laws, addressing the problem of the application of mathematical structures to the relevant structure of physical domains. Physical laws, we argue, express generalizations that work as rules for deriving physically informative inferences about their target systems, hence guiding us in our interaction with various domains. Our analysis of the application of mathematics to the articulation of physical laws follows a threefold scheme. First, we examine the immersion of the relevant structure of physical domains into mathematical structures. Second, we assess the inferential power of laws resulting from the mathematical formalism employed in the immersion step. And third, we provide a suitable physical interpretation for the extant mathematical structures obtained from the inferential step. We demonstrate that a deflationary, empiricist framework for an inferential conception of physical laws delivers both an understanding of the mathematical character of physical laws, and a way of responding to some of the standard philosophical riddles associated with laws.

Diagrams are hybrid entities, which incorporate both linguistic and pictorial elements, and are crucial to any account of scientific and mathematical reasoning. Hence, they offer a rich source of examples to examine the relation between model-theoretic considerations and linguistic features. Diagrams also play different roles in different fields. In scientific practice, their role tends not to be evidential in nature, and includes: highlighting relevant relations in a micrograph ; sketching the plan for an experiment; and expressing expected visually salient information about the outcome of an experiment. None of these traits are evidential; rather they are all pragmatic. In contrast, in mathematical practice, diagrams are used as heuristic tools in proof construction ; notational devices; and full-blown proof procedures. Some of these traits are evidential. After assessing these different roles, I explain why diagrams are used in the way they are in these two fields. The result leads to an account of different styles of scientific reasoning within a broadly model-based conception.

_Thinking about Science, Reflecting on Art: Bringing Aesthetics and Philosophy of Science togethe_r is the first book to systematically examine the relationship between the philosophy of science and aesthetics. With contributions from leading figures from both fields this edited collection engages with such questions as: Does representation function in the same way in science and in art? What important characteristic do scientific models share with literary fictions? What is the difference between interpretation in the sciences and in the arts? Can there be a science of aesthetics? In what ways can aesthetics and philosophy of science be integrated? Aiming to develop the interconnections between the philosophy of science and the philosophy of art more broadly and more deeply than ever before this volume not only explores scientific representation by comparison with fiction but extends the scope of interaction to include metaphysical and other questions around methodology in mainstream philosophy of science, including the aims of science, the characterisation of scientific understanding, and the nature of observation, as well as drawing detailed comparisons between specific examples in both art and the sciences.

What things count as individuals, and how do we individuate them? It is a classic philosophical question often tackled from the perspective of analytic metaphysics. This volume proposes that there is another channel by which to approach individuation -- from that of scientific practices. From this perspective, the question then becomes: How do scientists individuate things and, therefore, count them as individuals? This volume collects the work of philosophers of science to engage with this central philosophical conundrum from a new angle, highlighting the crucial topic of experimental individuation and building upon recent, pioneering work in the philosophy of science. An introductory chapter foregrounds the problem of individuation, arguing it should be considered prior to the topic of individuality. The following chapters address individuation and individuality from a variety of perspectives, with prominent themes being the importance of experimentation, individuation as a process, and pluralism in individuation's criteria. Contributions examine individuation in a wide range of sciences, including stem cell biology, particle physics, and community ecology. Other chapters examine the metaphysics of individuation, its bearing on realism/antirealism debates, and interrogate epistemic aspects of individuation in scientific practice. In exploring individuation from the philosophy of biology, physics, and other scientific subjects, this volume ultimately argues for the possibility of several criteria of individuation, upending the tenets of traditional metaphysics. It provides insights for philosophers of science, but also for scientists interested in the conceptual foundations of their work.

Throughout most of his career, Rudolf Carnap attempted to articulate an empiricist view. Central to this project is the understanding of how empiricism can be made compatible with abstract objects that seem to be invoked in mathematics. In this paper, I discuss and critically evaluate three moves made by Carnap to accommodate mathematical talk within his empiricist program: the “weak logicism” in the Aufbau; the combination of formalism and logicism in the Logische Syntax; and the distinction between internal and external question characteristic of Carnap’s involvement with modality. As a result, the clear interplay between Carnap’s philosophy of science and his work in the philosophy of mathematics will emerge, as well as some challenges that need to be overcome along the way.