Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Metaphysica

International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Together with Cumpa, Javier

Editorial Board Member: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.111
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.530

Online
ISSN
1874-6373
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Vikings or Normans? The Radicalism of Naturalized Metaphysics

Don Ross
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; Center for Economic Analysis of Risk, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-09-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0018

Abstract

The paper investigates the extent to which naturalized metaphysics, as proposed and characterized by Ladyman and Ross (2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press) among others, suggests a radical break with the conceptual space of pre-naturalized metaphysics. The investigation compares Ladyman and Ross’s methodology for metaphysics with that recently advocated by Steven French (2014. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press). The comparison promises to be revealing because French shares Ladyman and Ross’s commitment to build a new metaphysics on the basis of a particular thesis developed in the philosophy of science literature, ontic structural realism (OSR). Thus differences between Ladyman and Ross’s and French’s approaches to metaphysics can be exhibited cleanly, without having to be pried apart from different respective views about the ontology implied by scientific theory and practice.

Keywords: naturalism; metaphysics; ontic structural realism; metaphilosophy

References

  • Batterman, R. 2002. The Devil in the Details. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bird, A. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Brown, R., and J. Ladyman. 2009: “Physicalism, Supervenience and the Fundamental Level.” Philosophical Quarterly 59:20–38.Google Scholar

  • Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dennett, D. 1991. “Real Patterns.” Journal of Philosophy 88:27–51.Google Scholar

  • Dupré, J. 1993. The Disorder of Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fine, A. 1984. “The Natural Ontological Attitude.” In Scientific Realism, edited by J. Leplin, 83–107. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Fine, A. 1986. The Shaky Game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • French, S. 2014. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • French, S., and K. McKenzie. 2012. “Thinking Outside the (Tool)Box: Towards a More Productive Engagement Between Metaphysics and Philosophy of Physics.” European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 8:42–59.Google Scholar

  • Ladyman, J., and K. Robertson. 2013. “Landauer Defended: A Reply to Norton.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44:263–261.Google Scholar

  • Ladyman, J., and D. Ross. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ladyman, J., and D. Ross. 2013. “The World in the Data.” In Scientific Metaphysics, edited by D. Ross, J. Ladyman and H. Kincaid, 108–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lange, M. 2009. Laws and Lawmakers: Science, Metaphysics and the Laws of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Maudlin, T. 2007. The Metaphysics within Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pearl, J. 2009. Causality, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • van Fraassen, B. 2002. The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Woodward, J. 2003. Making Things Happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Zahar, E. 2007. Why Science Needs Metaphysics: A Plea for Structural Realism. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-09-09

Published in Print: 2016-09-01


Citation Information: Metaphysica, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0018.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in