Bruno Borge

In the context of contemporary debates on scientific realism, structural realism(SR), explicitly introduced by John Worrall (1989), has shown to be one of the most vigorous philosophical proposals. It suggests that the knowledge that science has given us along its history is about the structure of the world, rather than about its content (nature). James Ladyman (1998), in co-authorship with Steven French (2003a, 2003b), has defended an ontic version of this position that can be summarized as follows: our knowledge is only about the structure of the world, because it’s all there is. This ontic structural realism (OSR) bases its attempt at a structural reconceptualization of objects on a metaphysical underdetermination at the level of elemental particles posited by quantum mechanics, before which the traditional realist finds herself without any resource to answer this simple question: “What is a quantum object?” OSR has motivated many objections that challenge its conceptual basis, the development of its argumentation, and even its mere coherence. Anjan Chakravartty (2003) maintains that, even when taking for granted the starting point of OSR, the replacement of an ontology of objects by one that posits structures as its primordial component is unjustified, because it does not satisfy some basic methodological principles. My aim in the present workis not to offer a complete defense of OSR, but to question the reasons given by Chakravartty to support this claim. Key words: scientific realism, structural realism, ontic structural realism.

Both descriptivism and the causal theory of reference fail to account for the meaning of theoretical terms in a way consistent with scientific realism. Faced with this problem, hybrid theories of reference have been developed. They combine features of both descriptivism and the causal theory and seek to capture the advantages of each. In this work, we critically analyze two strategies to articulate hybrid theories of reference in the face of the problem of the meaning of theoretical terms. They are exemplified by the proposals of Psillos and Kitcher. We argue that neither of these strategies is successful in articulating the descriptive and causal elements in a genuine hybrid theory of reference that satisfies the standards of scientific realism.

Standard quantum mechanics poses serious challenges to some principles deeply entrenched in traditional metaphysics. In particular, the theory defies the ontological category of individual object through three of its features: contextuality, non-separability, and indistinguishability. The difficulties have prompted the development of non-traditional ontological frameworks intended to account for the quantum domain. Some approaches advocate replacing the classical conception of a realm of objects endowed with properties by an ontology that either dispenses with the category of object altogether or treats it as a derivative notion. The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation (MHI) of quantum mechanics and Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) exemplify this position. MHI proposes an ontology in which quantum systems are non-objectual bundles of properties linked by definite physical relations. The OSR defends the ontological primacy of structures, within which objects are construed as nodes of relations. The aim of this article is to compare these two ontological approaches, highlighting both their points of convergence and their divergences, particularly in light of the ontological challenges posed by quantum mechanics. With this aim, the article is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the ontology of MHI, introducing the distinction between type-properties and case-properties, characterizing quantum systems as non-objectual bundles, and analyzing the role of symmetry groups in providing physical content to the theory and governing actualization. Section 3 turns to OSR, examining its motivations, its distinction between physical and mathematical structures, and the modal character of structures. Section 4 offers a systematic comparison of the two approaches, considering their respective motivations and scope, their shared commitment to an object-free ontology, the role played by symmetry groups within each framework, and their contrasting interpretations of modality. Finally, Section 5 presents some concluding remarks.

This paper defends weak and local methodological continuity—that is, continuity with respect to specific shared devices rather than global methodological frameworks—across science, naturalized metaphysics, and autonomous metaphysics. The contemporary debate has conflated two distinct continuity problems: whether naturalized metaphysics can share in science’s epistemic success and whether proximity to science privileges certain metaphysical approaches over others. Additionally, continuity claims involve multiple dimensions that are not always properly distinguished. The paper makes two interconnected contributions. First, I develop a triadic framework that distinguishes these continuity problems and dimensions, providing analytical tools for practice-sensitive assessments. Second, applying this framework, I argue that thought experiments, understood as shared methodological devices, exhibit methodological continuity across all three domains. The analysis shows that thought experiments perform structurally analogous roles in each domain despite operating under different epistemic constraints and background commitments. This methodological continuity neither presupposes nor entails strong epistemic conclusions, but demonstrates that the science-metaphysics relationship resists simple dichotomies of complete continuity or categorical discontinuity. The framework suggests a productive methodological reorientation: rather than debating global continuity a priori, philosophical inquiry should examine how specific methodological devices function across domains through careful, local case studies. Thought experiments provide one such case; the approach developed here applies to other shared methodological tools.

One of the major appeals of Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) is to provide a me-taphysical proposal capable of dealing with the ontological problem of quan-tum indistinguishability. The Modal-Hamiltonian Interpretation of quantum mechanics (MHI), on the other hand, aspires to formulate a “global” solution, in which all the ontological problems of the theory can be adequately addressed in terms of a single ontology. In both proposals, the ontological category of ob-ject is absent. The purpose of the present article is to analyze the MHI ontology by suggesting that it satisfies the central motivations that led to the formulation of OSR but also overcomes the conceptual problems that OSR has faced since its formulation.

The article addresses the question of how should scientific peers revise their beliefs (if at all) upon recognized disagreement. After presenting the basics of peer disagreement in sections 1 and 2, we focus, in section 3, on a concrete case of scientific disagreement, to wit, the dispute over the evidential status of randomized control trials in medical practice. The examination of this case motivates the idea that some scientific disagreements permit a steadfast reaction. In section 4, we support this conclusion by providing a normative argument in the same direction; if we are correct, typical reasons for conciliation are absent in this kind of scientific disagreements.

Disagreements about scientific ontology have frequently been reconstructed as the result of a dispute between rival epistemic stances. In this paper, (i) we characterize some of these disagreements as deep disagreements. In addition, we show that deep disagreements about scientific ontology can arise not only from the adoption of different epistemic stances, but also between positions that fall within the same stance. The development of this point allows us, in turn, to establish a distinction between types of deep disagreement and to explore the possibility that there are differences of degree between them.

En el presente trabajo analizo críticamente dos estrategias empleadas para esclarecer la naturaleza modal de las estructuras tal como son concebidas por el realismo estructural óntico (reo) en su versión eliminativista: los patrones reales de Ladyman y Ross (2007) y las leyes y simetrías de French (2014). Ofrezco argumentos para mostrar que ambas resultan incapaces de brindar una caracterización de las estructuras como entidades inherentemente modales. Ese resultado impone serias dificultades al proyecto de presentar el reo como una posición realista acerca del mundo físico.

A highly influential position in the debate between nomological realists and antirealists (i.e., the debate about the metaphysical status of natural laws) is the regularist theory of laws. Its main feature is the defense of a humean metaphysics which denies the existence of real causal powers and necessary connections in nature. Regularism, however, rely on a traditional reading of Hume’s philosophy. In this paper we aim to revisit the discussion around laws of nature in light of nontraditional interpretations of his work, often labeled as the ‘New Hume’.

RESUMO Os debates sobre o Realismo Científico não só tiveram um começo e um desenvolvimento contemporâneos aos do Realismo Modal e Realismo Nomológico, mas suas temáticas estiveram também profundamente entrelaçadas. Certa atitude realista em relação às teorias científicas tem sido muitas vezes acompanhada pela adoção de compromissos com a modalidade objetiva e as leis naturais. No entanto, as relações entre estas três posições têm sido pouco exploradas. Neste artigo defendo que manter o RC indiretamente envolve assumir compromissos com o RM e o RN. No primeiro caso, por causa dos argumentos que dão suporte ao RC; no segundo, uma vez que, dentro das alternativas disponíveis no debate sobre as leis, o RN é comparativamente melhor para o realista científico. ABSTRACT Debates on scientific realism not only had a beginning and contemporary developments before those on Modal Realism and on Nomological Realism, also their thematics were deeply entangled. Some realist attitude regarding other scientific theories has many times been followed by the adoption of commitments with an objective modality and the natural laws. Nevertheless, the relations among these three positions have been little explored. In this article I hold that keeping SR indirectly means committing to MR and NR. In the first case, because of the arguments supporting SR, in the second case, once within the options available in the debate on the laws, NR is - by comparison - better for the scientific realism.

Current debate on Structural Realism starts when Worrall suggest this position is capable of accounting for the central intuitions of both Scientific Realism and Antirealism. Since then, it has become a rich field of debate in which complex disputes have emerged. In this paper I maintain that, despite its recent appearance on the philosophical scene, SR constitutes the crowning of an epistemological trend I propose to call ‘structuralist tradition’. I take as its central feature to put the focus on the relations that exist in the natural world, rather than in the nature of the entities that maintain those relations. But despite this common feature, the various positions that have constituted that tradition in general, and the variants of RE in particular, have not offered a precise and uniform notion of structure.

The dispute between nomological realists and anti-realists has been reflected in the formulation of various arguments and counterarguments that reach topics as diverse as modality, induction and the very scientific practice. In this context it is common to take the main realist argument –the nomological argument– for an instance of Inference to the Best Explanation, while Nomological Anti-realism is considered a skeptical alternative concerning natural laws, sustained by independent reasons. This paper aims to review that image of the Nomological Realism vs. Anti-realism debate in light of what we believe is an appropriate distinction between abduction and Inference to the Best Explanation.

Resumen En la filosofía de Lakatos existe una tensión entre falibilismo y optimismo epistemológico. En el presente artículo propongo la reconstrucción de dos elementos clave para resolver positivamente esa tensión: una noción de verdad empírica, que neutralice el convencionalismo, y una noción de verdad parcial, que dé cuenta de la creciente verosimilitud de los programas de investigación. Para esto último, reviso un aspecto de la obra de Lakatos frecuentemente ignorado por los críticos: su posición en el debate acerca de las leyes de la naturaleza.There is a tension between fallibilism and epistemological optimism in Lakatos’s philosophy. This article proposes the reconstruction of two key elements to positively resolve such tension: a notion of empirical truth that could neutralize conventionalism, and a notion of partial truth, capable to account for the increasing verisimilitude of research programs. For the latter, I review one aspect of Lakatos’s work often ignored by the critics: his position on the debate regarding laws of nature.

In this paper, I critically review Buacar’s and Moretti’s positions on the justification and normativity of logic. I argue that they rely on a transcendentalist move to account for the normativity of logic and that this has undesirable consequences, in particular for Buacar’s position. I propose a revised notion of normativity in order to lay the groundwork for an alternative proposal that takes up the general outlines of Buacar’s analysis while emphasizing the naturalistic component of her ideas.

Las teorías de la referencia puramente descriptivistas o causales fracasan a la hora de dar cuenta del modo en que se fija y puede rastrearse la referencia de los términos teóricos. Psillos propuso dos versiones del descriptivismo causal que recogen argu-mentos presentes en defensas previas de dicha posición. Se trata de una teoría mixta que pretende solucionar el problema y acomodarse a intuiciones presentes en enfo-ques alternativos, como el que apela a oraciones de Ramsey. El artículo se propone mostrar la insuficiencia del descriptivismo causal como solución al problema de la referencia de los términos teóricos.

El problema de cómo un modelo teórico —i.e., una entidad matemática—puede representar algo en la naturaleza es central para el EstructuralismoEmpirista (EE) de van Fraassen. Su solución consiste en identificar unelemento indexical presente en toda aserción de la forma “X representa aY”. El presente trabajo pretende mostrar que: (a) dicho problema no es unobstáculo para el realismo más de lo que lo es para el EE; (b) la soluciónde van Fraassen deja al defensor del EE ante un dilema fatal: o bien nopuede dar cuenta de algunos de los supuestos más básicos de su posición,o bien debe conceder demasiado al realismo.

Los desacuerdos acerca de la ontología científica han sido frecuentemente reconstruidos como el resultado de una disputa entre stances epistémicas rivales. En el presente trabajo, (i) caracterizamos algunos de estos desacuerdos como desacuerdos profundos. Además, (ii) mostramos que los desacuerdos profundos sobre ontología científica pueden surgir no solo de la adopción de diferentes stances epistémicas, sino entre posiciones que se encuadran dentro de una misma stance. El desarrollo de ese punto nos permite, a su vez, establecer una distinción entre tipos de desacuerdos profundos y explorar la posibilidad de que existan diferencias de grado entre ellos.

In several academic studies, Pablo Melogno lays the groundwork for formulating election rational criteria between incommensurable theories, seeking to reconcile the Kuhnian notion of incommensurability with rationalist reconstructions of the processes of theoretical change. One of the axes of this project focuses on the semantic aspects of incommensurability, particularly the development of historical semantics that relativizes the scope of semantic holism. In this analysis, I deepen and extend Melogno’s project by considering various aspects of hybrid theories of reference.

As questões das leis da natureza e da modalidade subjacente à regularidade natural muitas vezes têm sido tratadas como uma só. No entanto, a análise metafísica mostra que só as posições que assumem um compromisso ontológico com as leis da natureza podem ser consideradas dentro do Realismo Nomológico. Mumford propõe uma alternativa ao RN compatível com os compromissos modais comumente associados a posições realistas. Neste ponto de vista, o peso da modalidade não está posto nas leis, mas sim em propriedades entendidas em termos de poderes e propensões. De acordo com sua própria nomenclatura, trata-se de um Realismo sem Leis. Neste trabalho pretende-se mostrar, em primeiro lugar, que os argumentos de Mumford contra o RN não justificam a sua rejeição e, em segundo lugar, defende-se que a metafísica disposicional do RSL leva, pelo menos, aos mesmos problemas que o RN.

This work applies Jessica Wilson’s metaphysical indeterminacy approach, ba-sed on the determinable-determinate distinction, to ancient ontologies, focu-sing on the Cyrenaic school. It argues that this conceptual framework elucida-tes the nature of indeterminacy in Cyrenaic metaphysics, complementing and resolving tensions in Ugo Zillioli’s interpretation. The study reviews the con-temporary debate on metaphysical indeterminacy, presents Wilson’s approach and its applications, and applies it to ancient ontologies, particularly the Cyre-naic school. It discusses the conceptual and interpretative advantages of this application, contributing to a deeper understanding of Cyrenaic metaphysics within the context of indeterminacy ontologies in ancient philosophy.

RESUMEN Un experimento mental en ciencias fácticas consiste en la representación de un escenario imaginario. A partir de la presentación de condiciones iniciales y la postulación de una situación hipotética o contrafáctica, se solicita al lector que realice mentalmente alguna operación, manipule ciertas variables o ponga en funcionamiento algún aparato o instrumento. En virtud de este ejercicio sería posible, en principio, obtener nuevo conocimiento acerca de algún aspecto del mundo natural. El debate acerca de las funciones de los experimentos mentales en las ciencias fácticas está centrado en establecer la validez del conocimiento acerca del mundo empírico que estos dispositivos son capaces de proporcionar. La propuesta interpretativa de Brown da sustento a la idea de que, en casos excepcionales, los experimentos mentales pueden cumplir funciones probatorias. Los denominados “experimentos mentales platónicos” permiten intuir leyes de la naturaleza y justificar a priori las hipótesis propuestas. Sostenemos que la conexión trazada por Brown entre los experimentos mentales y leyes naturales exhibe un aspecto problemático de su filosofía: el compromiso injustificado con una metafísica inflacionaria. Mostramos que es posible explicar el mecanismo a través del cual estos dispositivos proporcionan conocimiento nuevo y dar cuenta tanto de su poder heurístico cómo de su valor evidencial a partir compromisos metafísicos más modestos. ABSTRACT Thought experiments in factual science consists on the representation of an imaginary scenario. Starting with the presentation of a hypothetical or counterfactual situation and the description of initial conditions, the reader is asked to mentally perform some operation, to manipulate certain variables or to put into operation some apparatus or instrument. In virtue of this exercise, it would be possible to obtain new knowledge about the natural world. The debate on the functions of thought experiments in physics is focused on determining the validity of the empirical knowledge that these devices are capable of providing. Brown supports the idea that, in exceptional cases, thought experiments can perform probative functions. The so-called “Platonic Thought Experiments” allow us to intuit laws of nature and provide an a priori justification of the proposed hypotheses. We hold that Brown's connection between thought experiments and laws of nature exhibits a problematic aspect of his philosophy: the unjustified commitment with an inflationary metaphysics. We show that it is possible to explain the mechanism through which these devices provide new knowledge and give an account of both their heuristic power and their evidential value from modest metaphysical commitments.